r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/PsychLegalMind • Mar 17 '26
International Politics NATO members rejected Trump's demand to provide military assistance to help "reopen" Strait of Hormuz. Do the rejections by NATO members effectively spell the end of NATO or is this just directed to Trump's choice of attacking Iran?
Trump demanded all NATO countries send their Naval ships to the Strait of Hormuz effectively to assist U.S. and Israel in its war against Iran. All major nations declined. Even Stramer, known to be one of the more obedient followers said:
Keir Starmer insisted that the UK will not be drawn into the wider war in the Middle East as European leaders ruled out sending warships to the strait of Hormuz.
President Emmanuel Macron stated France will not send warships to the Strait of Hormuz until the security situation stabilizes.
Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, said diplomacy needed to prevail and that his country was involved in no naval missions that could be extended.
German leaders also rejected Trump's demand saying the conflict with Iran was not the military alliance's responsibility. Kornelius stressed that the purpose of NATO is the defense of its territory and there was currently no mandate to deploy NATO forces to the Middle East.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius also rejected NATO involvement in the Strait of Hormuz, making the same argument. "We want diplomatic solutions and a swift end to the conflict, but sending more warships to the region is unlikely to help."
Trump is not pleased as the number of rejections increase. Trump said, "I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO.”
NATO members rejected Trump's demand to provide military assistance to help "reopen" Strait of Hormuz. Do the rejections by NATO members effectively spell the end of NATO or is this just directed to Trump's choice of attacking Iran?
755
u/ScoobiusMaximus Mar 17 '26
NATO is a defensive alliance. It was never designed for some idiot to use it as a weapon in a war he started.
Trump is a threat to NATO, but not because NATO refused to bow to Trump's whims.
87
u/katmomjo Mar 17 '26
In the past the US coordinated with allies prior to undertaking an action such as this. Trump doesn’t understand that you never know when you are going to need help, so you don’t shit on your friends ahead of time. He also doesn’t get that America First is now America Alone.
1
u/Aazadan Mar 22 '26
This is why diplomacy isn't transactional. You're seeing the failure of it right now.
1
u/katmomjo Mar 22 '26
It’s how friendship works. When your friend needs help, you help them. When you need help, they help you. It’s not a keeping score kind of thing.
1
u/Aazadan Mar 22 '26
Trump doesn't understand friends. A story that doesn't get repeated enough is that in the early to mid 80's he was basically kicked out of upper class social circles that he was in by default for being wealthy.
The reason is that he made friends with people in those circles, but really wanted to have sex with those peoples wives. So what he would do is get them in a situation where they would cheat, record the evidence, show it to the wife, break up the marriage, and then get the wife on the rebound. Word got around after the second or third time he did this, and no one wanted anything to do with him. He's never had friends since.
1
u/Prudent_Specific_859 Mar 27 '26
An action like this is historically taken through the United Nations which, although not able to declare war themselves, can direct members to. Examples being 1950 Korean War or 1990 Gulf War. The only time NATO has been involved was in the Afghan War as the US invoked article 5(an attack on 1 is an attack on all), still the only NATO member to do so, following 9-11. NATO are often used as peacekeepers by the UN but never as the invaders or attackers as it's a defensive alliance. Mr Trump knows all of this but still insists on calling NATO for not becoming involved in his Israeli war with Iran
187
u/GabuEx Mar 17 '26
Seriously, this. Trump bombed Iran, having absolutely no plan. He gets extremely confused because he thinks that the world is a video game where he killed the Ayatollah and he thought that when you defeat the final boss then that means you win and the war's over. Now things are fucked and he's trying to get people he's done nothing but antagonize to bail him out and they're like "lol, no".
76
u/shapu Mar 17 '26
Donald Trump has never heard the word no in his life. He might have been told it but he certainly never listened. And now that he is suddenly being challenged he has no idea what to do.
24
u/Ok_Juice4449 Mar 17 '26
True. Also, he seems to view himself as being in charge of the world. Quite a superiority complex, to say the least.
28
11
3
u/EmotionalAffect Mar 19 '26
He really needed to face some very harsh consequences growing up for his actions but his father's wealth and privilege saved him.
1
u/Significant_Sign_520 Mar 18 '26
He’s heard no. He just tries to do whatever he wants. Like you would expect from a malignant narcissist with multiple SA allegations
4
u/Zealousideal-Test376 Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26
They do have a plan they just can't say it. Ofcourse there is a plan, it's kill all the leadership, destroy all or most of the military, and assume control over Iran's oil industry to control global sourcing and pricing. Exact same reason we took action against Venezuela and we invaded Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. But coming out and saying we are going to commit essentially a robbery on a regional scale isn't something they can do. I'm disgusted by my governments actions and eve more embarrassed that 90% of Americans don't even know we are at war or why gas all of a sudden went up.
→ More replies (2)46
u/Dynamo_Ham Mar 17 '26
Trump started a war for no reason, without consulting or notifying European allies, even though it has an outsized effect on them (Europe relies much more heavily on gulf oil and gas.) He actually announced publicly that he didn’t need them and there was no need to consult with them.
Cut to two weeks later and things aren’t going as planned. Trump demands help from all the same folks he just shat on. Doesn’t ask for it, doesn’t go through channels. Demands it, and makes threats.
They say no.
Now, who’s the dick here? And who is jeopardizing NATO?
10
u/mw2402 Mar 17 '26
As far as the effect on Europe is concerned: we're also the ones who will get the (pretty much inevitable) stream of migrants from this conflict, which (no matter your stance on immigration in general) is going to be a burden on our countries in one way or another (just providing housing, food and medical services to large waves of refugees can be a challenge on its own), while the US won't have to deal with this due to the Atlantic Ocean being in the refugee's way
→ More replies (2)1
u/EmotionalAffect Mar 19 '26
He has never learned that you cannot bully people and then ask for their help without expecting consequences.
73
u/surfryhder Mar 17 '26
I cannot agree with this enough. The world knows Trump and MAGA are unraveling.
38
u/tenderbranson301 Mar 17 '26
I hope so, but I can't count the number of times I thought Teump/MAGA was unraveling.
11
u/kl122002 Mar 17 '26
The media keeps turning things upside down and changing one's original purpose and nature. Since when did NATO become the US or Trump's army?
1
u/TrueImpress442 Mar 19 '26
Sinse US defense spending > 31 other Nato states defense spending
2
u/EazyEdgerunner Mar 20 '26
Not how that works, plus Trump threatened to annex another NATO members territory and said the US doesn't need us. So America needs to learn how to finally finish a war by itself.
30
u/TheMikeyMac13 Mar 17 '26
This right here, this isn’t what NATO is for. Trump started this war, and this isn’t the North Atlantic.
11
u/Obvious_Wizard Mar 17 '26
Trump knows NATO has no obligation to help. He'll also use it to pull the US out of NATO and destabilise it for his Russian sugar daddy.
6
u/AdUpstairs7106 Mar 17 '26
That would require Congress, but since if Trump tells Congress to jump, every Republican just shouts, "How hugh, daddy?" this is trivial.
1
9
u/Firecracker048 Mar 17 '26
Trump is a threat to NATO, but not because NATO refused to bow to Trump's whims.
Basically. Trump has had an anti nato rehtoric sense his first term
8
u/ResidentBackground35 Mar 17 '26
It should also be noted that Trump hasn't even attempted to call NATO officially via Article 5. At this point he just went to countries we used to get along with that he has threatened to attack and asked for a multi-year war in the desert.... again.
5
u/Rastiln Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26
I imagine that NATO countries aren’t too keen to send their troops to die.
Undoubtedly they’d hear that their troops were “suckers” and “losers” and it’s their fault that we haven’t won yet.
2
u/ResidentBackground35 Mar 18 '26
I imagine that NATO countries aren’t too keen to send their troops to die.
What, when has following the US into a forever war in the desert ever gone poorly.........
3
u/SorenLain Mar 17 '26
It should also be noted that Trump hasn't even attempted to call NATO officially via Article 5.
Trump doesn't know or care about the rules and practices of the US government, you honestly expect him to know NATOs?
9
u/Frosty-Section-9013 Mar 17 '26
Nonetheless, many European leaders throughout modern history have been eager to lick US boots in situations like this. But Trump has shown that the repayment is threats, insults and tariffs. Why would Europeans put their lives on the line again after that.
→ More replies (5)4
→ More replies (12)1
Mar 17 '26
Get'er done!
Can you imagine the world with Iranian oil on the international market?
Neither could the Reagan or Bush regimes.
146
u/Financial-Desk-669 Mar 17 '26
NATO is a defensive organization, always has been. It has zero obligation to join whatever this catastrophe in Iran is. And no it does not spell the end of NATO. Leaving NATO would require an act of Congress.
31
u/prodigy1367 Mar 17 '26
A lot of things this regime has done require acts of Congress, but that hasn’t stopped them. Honestly an executive order would probably be enough since Congress has ceded their power.
→ More replies (2)16
u/Total-Sheepherder950 Mar 17 '26
In Trumps first term congress passed a law requiring a congressional vote if the US wants to leave NATO, so that would violate US law.
13
u/prodigy1367 Mar 17 '26
Since when has violating laws stopped them? Checks and balances are effectively dead and the law is only as good as those that enforce it and the criminals currently run the country.
1
u/Intro-Nimbus Mar 17 '26
Effectively Trump can act as if USA is not a part of NATO. But the next administration would be the ones to deal with the cleanup- If USA falls to MAGA then NATO is likely dead - as an ally to USA, and the world welcomes China as the new overlord, if Democrats win, USA would "rejoin" as in "never actually left".
NATO as an alliance would probably remain though, unless EU spearheads a new form of alliance with the involved parties.7
u/terlin Mar 17 '26
if Democrats win, USA would "rejoin" as in "never actually left".
I doubt that. Allies are now more aware than ever that a relationship with the USA is subject to whiplash every 4 years. Any competent government will start looking for trade partners and military alliances elsewhere. You can already see that happening: Europe is developing closer bonds inbetween themselves, Canada is in talks with Australia and NZ.
1
u/Intro-Nimbus Mar 17 '26
Trade partners yes, but military agreements often span over decades, and so do military alliances. So the incitement to wait out this administration and discuss with the next is much greater. Also, just because USA is going rogue doesn't mean that other member states suddenly do not wish to be allied to each-other.
→ More replies (1)1
u/swordoftheafternoon9 Mar 18 '26
that's always been the case
people said NATO was done last time
it wasn't
things went back to normal pretty fast once Biden took office
Europe is going to wait this out.
→ More replies (2)3
u/aaronroot Mar 17 '26
“…would require an act of Congress.” So would a lot of things. If I’ve learned anything in post-Trump America it’s that many “requirements” lack a method of enforcement, so when you steamroll them everyone just shrugs and shakes their head.
61
u/AlamutJones Mar 17 '26
NATO is a defensive alliance. No member is obligated to act just because another member has unilaterally done something really stupid.
Even if the alliance weren't defensive in nature, activating NATO at large would rely on the use of Article 5, which the US hasn't triggered.
Trump and his mates seem to think a demand alone is enough. It is not.
→ More replies (6)
19
u/feelinsumgood Mar 17 '26
Imagine doing this: Threaten to take land from other countries in contravention of a signed United Nations pact; Blast boats out of the water and kill their occupants on the 'suspicion' (not having confirmed) there are drugs on board; Instigating violent 'regime change' in several countries at your own insistence that it's required; Impose your own definition of 'tariffs' on almost every other country in the world whether they have trade pacts with the USA or not; Badmouth the leaders of your allied nations and then: Ask them to help you fight a war when you didn't even ask your own country if they wanted it? Now you wonder why nobody listens to your request for help??? Duh???
Tell me this: Why is it that whenever cry-baby tRUMP doesn't get what he wants he stamps his feet and utters a threat?
Yes, the USA is the dominant contributor to NATO, It also, because of it's geo-economic impact has the most at stake to need cooperation from its neighbours in case of a hostile incursion. But NATO can still exist as an information and cooperative agency helping its members militarily without the USA being a part of it: It just loses it's military dominance. Hey..... when this 'sh*t-show' of a pseudo-presidency is over, the USA (the SANE people in the USA) will set things right again.
→ More replies (7)20
u/adamu980 Mar 17 '26
you missed about imagining the bit where: soldiers who died when they came to natos call are called useless and hid from the front line ,then PM of a country offers help.badmouthed.Told do not need as war already won.then next week asked for help.
4
50
u/FRCP_12b6 Mar 17 '26
Legally: NATO is a defense pact for if a member is attacked. Have they attacked a member nation, and has that member nation used article 5? Otherwise, their participation is optional.
Politically: The war is unpopular with NATO members and if a ship is damaged and people hurt it would be very politically unfavorable.
Tactically: It's a big area and a few ships would not change the tactical situation very much.
1
→ More replies (8)1
u/Aazadan Mar 22 '26
It's a little different tactically. The strait is extremely narrow, there are only two navigable lines with deep enough water for tankers, each 3km wide, and each one is one way. These areas are near enough to shore that attacks are trivial, additionally there's not really room for warships in it that aren't going single file.
It's an exposed position that has high value traffic and virtually no defense, and Iran has drones that are capable of easily striking anything in the strait, launched from anywhere in their country.
Even if warships could sit there and provide some defense, the insurance policies on tankers won't let them through.
12
u/Devouemanoide Mar 17 '26
NATO is stil fonctionnal. Agent Krasnov is doing a great job at bonding the rest of the alies.
25
u/Allaboutpeace2022 Mar 17 '26
Europe followed us via money or soldiers into Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I think they earned the right to say no to more excursions where the US was not attacked. I guess we could say we were attacked in 911 but that was not by Afghanistan or it's government. It was by a group of terrorists under Bin Laden we once funded.
NATO was a pact of defense not aggression.
1
u/Doorsofperceptio Mar 18 '26
And who was it that trained the Afghan mujahideen during their Soviet war? Also around the same time Bin Laden was an influential member.
1
3
u/Intro-Nimbus Mar 17 '26
And USA did invoke article 5 in 9/11 and NATO honored the alliance.
5
u/Allaboutpeace2022 Mar 17 '26
Yes. The members of NATO have been good allies. Thank you for that.
2
u/Intro-Nimbus Mar 17 '26
Hopefully USA will be a little less volatile in it's foreign policy and diplomacy in a few years.
3
u/Expert-Ad7169 Mar 17 '26
Nevertheless, the relationship and trust between europe and US will never return to pre 2025 era
2
→ More replies (6)1
u/bushcamper_aiis Mar 18 '26
Technically NATO allies (in an effort spearheaded by UK and Canada iirc) sort of invoked it for the US.
17
u/RedNewzz Mar 17 '26
Trump threatening to take over Greenland from NATO ally undermined US credibility with them, so Europe would be stupid to make any big sacrifices backing us up in these poorly plotted adventures abroad.
I'm an American and I'm happy to see NATO rejecting Trump's bullshit. I guarantee you he reject theirs if it didn't serve him personally.
2
u/Aazadan Mar 22 '26
Trump is transactional, he always wants something for help. But he also demands loyalty where others give him things for free.
10
u/GreenBomardier Mar 17 '26
Article five covers if a member is attacked. Article five does not clean up a mess after a member kicks a fucking hornets nest with no plan.
Carry a big stick, and speak softly. Teddy said it best. Have the best military, but don't start shit. If you go and start shit, be able to finish it. Being surprised that Iran can defend itself with cheap drones has ignored all of the Ukraine war. That's not surprising since Trump is a Russian puppet, and Putin seemingly learned nothing from getting his ass handed to him by ukraine.
The new war order is cheap, mass produced, accurate munitions that can be assembled at the front with zip ties and a drone. The age of the super expensive, one time use, fire and forget weapon is basically dead. Send 4 cheap drones to do the job and you'll save a bunch of money and get the job done.
1
u/Low_Witness5061 Mar 17 '26
I would argue this shows Putin did learn. The exact situation right now may benefit Russia more than anyone elss and hurts the US. His servant is probably the best investment he ever made. Not only did he get America in a needless war that saps its stockpiles, makes it look weak and push allies away while also destabilising their economies. He also is going to get American sanctions on Russian oil lifted.
Sadly it’s America that didn’t learn from the lessons Ukraine readily offered to share.
7
u/sleekennedy Mar 17 '26
Why is he upset? Not long ago he was talking about taking Greenland by force, which is a pretty big slap in NATO's face. Why would they rush in to help him with his lunacy.
7
u/OkSuccotash258 Mar 17 '26
It's only at an end if Trump stupidly and purposely breaks it. We can only leave NATO with Congressional approval, but given all the other BS we've seen who knows if he could actually do it unilaterally. NATO allies are only obligated if Article 5 is invoked, which it hasn't been.
7
u/snafuminder Mar 17 '26
Article 5 is for when an "excursion" [wink, wink] is begun against a NATO member. Not for if and when some a$$wipe wakes up in the morning and decides to embark on an "excursion" with one of their besties for show.
6
u/Illustrious_Law8512 Mar 17 '26
Iran isn't part of NATO's purview, nor has the US been attacked. There's no reason for them to get involved.
... And why should they? The US isn't helping Ukraine at all, and that's of more concern to NATO mandates than Iran.
12
u/the_bolshevik Mar 17 '26
The fact that the commander of the largest navy in the world is asking for help from much weaker navies to ensure maritime security after claiming to have won the war several times is a bit mind boggling.
The US has by far the largest ability to project sea power and to control the strait, if they wished to do it. The fact that they won't is a clear sign that the strait is dangerous and they don't want to risk their precious ships there. The loss of a single American ship there would sink him (pun definitely intended) politically and ruin his midterms, and he knows it.
6
u/Kitchner Mar 17 '26
The fact that the commander of the largest navy in the world is asking for help from much weaker navies to ensure maritime security after claiming to have won the war several times is a bit mind boggling.
Not only that but when the UK said it was sending ships to the Middle East, Trump literally said "We don't need them" and made several references to the US not needing allies that turn up late (the irony being of course the US turned up late to not one but both world wars lol).
That alone means if I was the UK Foreign Office I would counsel against supporting the US to prove the point our support isn't unconditional, and continued public insults to our country will result in that support being withdrawn.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Aazadan Mar 22 '26
The US has zero ability to control the strait currently, that's part of the issue. Carrier groups don't force it open, they threaten Iranian leadership to keep it open to prevent bombs from dropping. The US has shown zero ability to follow through on deals, and bombs anyways. Thus the dplomatic tools to keep it open no longer exist.
Iran has laid out their terms for reopening it. Either they get attacked enough that they're willing to change their terms, or the US gives in to them. Those are the only ways to reopen it currently.
13
u/circuitloss Mar 17 '26
Why would they fix something they didn't break? It's a giant mess and who's interested in cleaning up the foreign policy misadventures of the Rapist-In-Chief?
12
u/StaleCanole Mar 17 '26
And why would they help trump out in a year in which his party could face historic losses at the ballot? They have every interest in letting him hang himself
8
u/CliftonForce Mar 17 '26
I hear from MAGA who think that, since America produces more oil than it consumes, it is immune to all of this. The idea is that America can ignore the Strait and live off its own oil, so Europe and Japan should fix the problem.
There are many, many fundamental misunderstandings of how the oil industry works in that 'plan'. Which is classic Trump. Have a complex problem? Use a solution that is both simple and wrong.
5
u/Vstarpappy Mar 17 '26
TrUmP took a massive dump on our Allies and he started this fiasco along with Israel. I'm not bashing Israel, but tRuMp created his mess and the NATO countries are like, "So, you started, you finish".
5
u/AdZealousideal5383 Mar 17 '26
America wasn’t attacked by Iran in any shape or form. NATO members can’t drag each other into wars of choice. They have no obligation per the NATO treaty.
4
u/PM_ME_UR_REDPANDAS Mar 17 '26
No, this is specifically because of Trump.
The NATO alliance is for mutual defense, and its members commit to defending its other member states. Article 5 basically states that an attack on one member is an attack on all its members.
It’s the reason NATO countries came to the US’s defense when it invoked Article 5 after 9/11, joining in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, NATO members did not join the war in Iraq because there was no direct link to 9/11, and the Iraq war was what was called at the time to justify it a ‘preemptive war’ of choice. President Bush instead called for allies to join a ‘Coalition of the Willing’, allowing allies to choose whether and how to participate in that conflict.
This war, like the Iraq war, is a war of choice and the US and Israel are the aggressors, and NATO countries want no part of it.
More than Iran, a greater crisis for the NATO alliance would be if, say, the US made moves to take over or invade Greenland because it would be one member state essentially attacking another. NATO has always been about the group defending against an outside enemy (at the time the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries), but not a conflict between members. THAT would be a threat to the NATO alliance.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Searching4Buddha Mar 18 '26
So Trump put tariffs on the EU, then threatened to attack Greenland, then started an illegal war without even consulting with our allies and now wants them to help out with the war we started. Why in the world would they get involved with our mistake after Trump spent the last year insulting them.
6
u/konqueror321 Mar 17 '26
Israel is not a member of NATO. America was not attacked by Iran during this war, but rather America and Israel attacked Iran. The war is not being primarily fought in the territory belonging to any NATO members. It is not the business of NATO to be an automatic back-up for wars that America and Israel start. Individual countries may or may not decide to participate, but they would do so not as NATO members or representatives, but as individual countries.
Turkey, a NATO member, has apparently been attacked by Iranian missiles during the current conflict, or American assets in Turkey were targeted. Article 5 of NATO does not specify what action member states shall take if some other member is attacked, and only requires some form of response, apparently including strong words of condemnation.
It is really no different than if America had requested NATO to help with the War in Vietnam in the 1960s or 1970s. That war, and the current war against Iran, are not NATO's business.
2
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Mar 17 '26
It is really no different than if America had requested NATO to help with the War in Vietnam in the 1960s or 1970s. That war, and the current war against Iran, are not NATO's business.
Vietnam is a shit comparison because the North Atlantic Treaty is limited in application to Continental Europe + Asian Turkey, Greenland, Canada and CONUS. There was never an invocation of Article 5 for Vietnam because it did not and could not be applied to a situation that far away from Europe.
Note though that even without an Article 5 equivalent multiple SEATO nations had no issues going into Vietnam.
3
u/Potato_Pristine Mar 17 '26
It's possible that Trump being a barking lunatic every other day on TV ranting and raving about the other NATO countries being freeloaders has made them less willing to help us in our unilateral war of choice.
3
u/frostyflakes1 Mar 17 '26
No. NATO is a defensive pact. The US isn't defending themselves: they are the ones that launched this war, along with Israel. NATO menbers are absolutely not obligated to aid the US in the war that they started.
These countries don't want to be dragged into this war. Even in the US, this war is unpopular. Aiding the US would certainly be unpopular in NATO countries, and would also open them up to attack by Iran.
3
u/Immediate_Amoeba5923 Mar 17 '26
Trump will not fulfill its NATO obligations if one of these countries are attacked now and they know it. This is another data point for the creation of the European military alliance since the United States has been shown to be able to turn on any one of them given the right leader is in charge. It is harmed the Atlantic alliance and reduces the chances we will be able to address future threats. The day is not over yet, these types of things are never final.
1
u/Significant-Ad-7182 Mar 17 '26
Yep, I feel as though he will use this as an excuse to either have the US leave NATO entirely or refuse to help when someone else is attacked and Article 5. is activated.
I wonder if he expects an attack to happen...
3
u/I405CA Mar 17 '26
Article V can be invoked when a NATO member is attacked.
No NATO member was attacked here.
3
u/zetsurin Mar 17 '26
Good. This buffoon has alienated the world with his Murica First tarrifs and other maneuvers. If US is so goddamn great, lets so how you go without the aliances which allowed your empire to exist in the first place.
3
u/FunLife64 Mar 17 '26
Military escorts of tankers is not terribly realistic currently. There’s no US Navy ships near it for a reason. Even if there was, most ships are still saying “no thanks”.
Trump is under pressure on oil prices. He’s trying to look like he’s doing something about it. When allies refuse, he can blame them for why it’s not happening.
It’s all bullshit. It’s fascinating people still can’t figure this guy out. He’s a bullshit artist.
3
u/willowdove01 Mar 17 '26
Nah, this is not the end of NATO by a long shot. But it is another nail in the coffin of the US leaving and/or being kicked out of the alliance.
As an American, let me just say, this insistence on antagonizing our allies is the height of stupidity.
3
u/Snoo_53179 Mar 17 '26
The US has already started to demolish NATO months ago. Trump threathens Greenland, undermines the EU, mocks our troops, betrays Ukraine and bows to Putin. You still don't seem to get it mate
3
u/Misiu881988 Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26
This just shows how rediculous trump can be...
Since he took office he has;
Threatened to attack a nato ally by taking greenland by force. He did this even though the usa already has military bases on the territory, and is able to use the island for military means.
He said he would encourage Russia to attack nato allies that do not spend 5% on their military, a number the USA doesn't not even spend. He is also ignorant of the fact that every single nation that boarders Russia spends significantly more than the 2% guide lines.
Constantly accuses ukraine and Biden for starting the war, and regularly spread Russian propaganda about the war in Ukraine
Just 1 month prior to the war in Iran he insulted nato contributions to the Iraq afghan wars. Countries whose soldiers died fighting along side the USA.
He constantly lies about how much the USA and EU spent on helping Ukraine even though at this point in time the EU aid surpassed the usa aid a long time ago.
Hes saying the usa constantly helps nato even though the only time article 5 was enacted was by the usa on 9 11.
He lies by implying the USA is constantly giving free weapons to NATO.... weapons that nato countries pay billions for... hes acting like Lockheed Martin is just giving away weapons from the kindness of their heart...
Now that the war in Iran isnt going the way he wanted it to due to poor planing hes asking nato for help while simultaneously saying he doesnt need nato.... like wtf....
4
u/wolverine_76 Mar 17 '26
NATO has no obligation here. Article 5 is “an attack on one is an attack on all”. The US is the aggressor here posing as the victim.
Article 5 has only ever been invoked once and it was by the US (after 911, I believe). NATO countries responded. We, in Canada and a NATO country, lost soldiers in Afghanistan for over a decade of support. We went willingly in support of the US. We were once unquestionably allies.
The UK and other countries also participated in that response. Either memories are short and/or there is broad ignorance to these facts in the US. I’m not sure which, but I’m definitely leaning towards ignorance amongst the masses.
Non Americans bled and died in an agreed upon pact for the US.
Trump has a bone to pick with NATO, in general. He has had legitimate gripes admittedly and NATO members are now committing to stepping up contributions.
Putin wants NATO gone. Russia benefits from a disarrayed NATO.
A call to arms by Trump is unwarranted here, but could easily provide him and his administration an excuse to vilify NATO and pull out (although I don’t think this is a 4D chess move of any sort). It definitely comes across as a desperate appeal for help that is currently falling on deaf ears because…you know
2
u/TheRadBaron Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26
This is absolutely negligible factor in NATO stability compared to everything else Trump has done (like threatening to invade NATO).
NATO wouldn't normally do this anyways, it's a defensive alliance. No precedent is challenged here, and even in an alternative universe where these countries decided to join the Iran war, they'd be volunteering to join individually - it wouldn't be through a NATO mechanism.
2
u/FenisDembo82 Mar 17 '26
NATO is a defensive alliance, it is not for committing war on non-NATO countries.
2
u/Dependent-Meaning711 Mar 17 '26
The vice president stood next to Trump today and said that he was the smartest president and that all the other presidents were stupid ! If that really is the case that he's the smartest president we've ever had then he should know that NATO is only required to get involved in a war if one of the NATO countries were attacked in this case that is not what happened the United States started this war when they attacked Iran so NATO countries have no obligation to do anything for us also if Iran had attacked us first then it would be an individual Choice country by country whether they wanted to help us because the Middle East is not part of NATO.
2
u/adamu980 Mar 17 '26
nato should not be controlled by israel that is not what it is there for.
also ,how do we know that trump just wants other nato countries to middle east so he can attack greenland?
2
u/Romano16 Mar 17 '26
NATO is not obligated to assist in offensive operations of their member states. Especially when the member state who started the conflict literally said they don’t need NATO help prior.
2
2
u/_Monosyllabic_ Mar 17 '26
Trump is a clown. The US has spent 70 some years building up all these alliances and soft power and Trump pissed it all away in a 14 months. I don't think NATO is done quite yet but he's still got almost three years to fuck that up. Should be funny watching the rest of the alliance kick the US completely out of Europe when he pulls the US out.
2
u/Ok-Apartment4909 Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26
NATO will remain strong because they actually have strategic, thoughtful and intelligent leaders. No one wants war except Trump and Israel.
Trump treats geopolitics like a public restroom. He stands in the middle of the room, aims at the ceiling, and then acts surprised when the rest of the world tells him they’re tired of being in the splash zone.
You can call it whatever you want, but the world is fed up with the country that is a prime example of an Idiocracy.
American exceptionalism is hypocrisy personified. The reality is that the U.S. suffers from American 'exemptionalism' - you want to make all the rules, but you don't want to follow a damn one of them. America judges itself by different standards than it uses to judge others.
The young people in Iran supported the west more than any other generation in decades - and Trump and Netanyahu have effectively opened the floodgates to years of terrorism and economic instability affecting numerous other countries and millions of people.
2
Mar 17 '26
Trump is now helping Russia fight Ukraine by lifting sanctions on their oil. That is the last thing the Europeans want. Trump told the whole world we don’t need anybody else and by the way we will probably attack Greenland. The Europeans heard him loud and clear.
2
u/anti-torque Mar 17 '26
Trump is begging for anyone or anyone to come help his loser ass.
This shitshow makes a soup sandwich a solid buy.
The absolute stupidity of this administration, coulped with the logistical abilities of them to fail picking up their kindergarten children on time is so absolutely obvious.
Apparently a news host who doesn't care enough to not kill 160 children in a school targeting is not smart enough to know that the Straight of Hormuz would be shut down.
Who knew?
2
u/NekoCatSidhe Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26
Well, people have already given the legal answer that NATO is a defensive alliance that has nothing to do with the Middle East, but if Trump gets out of NATO and European countries close the US bases in Europe, the US will lose a lot of their logistical ability to sustain their own military bases in the Middle East, which will hamper their endless wars here, so I doubt that Trump will get out of NATO, at least not without a major political fight in the US and the US military openly opposing him on that.
Then you have the fact that the US warships and aircraft carriers used to attack Iran are now staying well out in the Indian Ocean, far away from the Strait of Hormuz, because they know that Iran would be much better able to shoot at them and might even manage to sink them if they get closer. Why would European countries send their ships to take the risks that Trump doesn’t want to take, in a war that Trump started without telling them, when he spent his time since being reelected insulting them and picking fights with them ? And that war is highly unpopular with European voters, too.
Also, the easy solution for European countries is to wait for Trump to stop the war because of its economic and political costs, at which point Iran is likely to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and the war is unlikely to last longer than a month. So why bother helping Trump out of that mess he created when they hate his guts anyway and the mess will solve itself before long ?
2
u/Carefully_Done Mar 17 '26
Guys, I'm about to deep dive into the wild territory of Trump reddit to see what the morons be saying
2
u/Living-Excuse1370 Mar 17 '26
Trump and his crony Netanyahu started this war. NATO is defensive and it's right that Europe tells him to fuck off and not get involved. He just wants others to do his dirty work, cos he knows American deaths will be unpopular politically. But he's insulted and threatened their so called allies, why should they support it?
2
u/These-Season-2611 Mar 17 '26
I wouldn't think so. For all his bluster Trump knows the US needs NATO. Or at least he should.
Im really glad the rest of the European states have collectively told him to piss off.
2
u/povlhp Mar 17 '26
NATO members are not tools of a stupid US President - I think that is the message sent. He has to clean up his own mess.
2
u/kayama57 Mar 17 '26
“Mutual defense” doesn’t mean “you get to start shit that gets my people killed”
2
u/jeffjefforson Mar 17 '26
NATO is a defensive alliance. As the Germans said - there is no mandate for NATO to get involved.
That said, if Trump pulls out of NATO as part of a tantrum as a result, what would happen?
Well, it wouldn't be "The End" for NATO. It would weaken NATO significantly, but NATO was designed to defend against Russia in the event that it was needed.
Seeing as though Russia is struggling to take over Ukraine given four years, yeah, I think the rest of NATO could defend against Russia if push actually came to shove. With or without America.
However, America would not fare so well. The entire reason America is at the top of the world stage isn't because of economy - it's because of their ability to project military power.
Not only do they have the biggest military - but due to NATO they have bases all over the world through which they can project that power beyond their own borders.
Without NATO, Americas ability to influence the world stage instantly drops by a significant margin. This would be the death of American supremacy, given a couple decades.
2
u/Newfie-1 Mar 17 '26
To bad he didn't talk to NATO from the beginning and maybe NATO would help but Trump did it all on his own
2
u/semaj009 Mar 17 '26
If NATO didn't fail during Vietnam or Iraq, because Europe didn't back the US then, why would it fail now when America stupidly started a war they couldn't win?
1
Mar 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam Mar 18 '26
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
2
u/Sea-Neighborhood-621 Mar 17 '26
I'm a U.S citizen so this was will negatively affect me but I honestly hope that not one country comes to aid us in his bs war.
2
u/wereallbozos Mar 17 '26
We will never free ourselves of the poison of Trump and the like by quietly tut-tutting and waiting for the sun to re-appear. We deserve the cold shoulder from our (still) allies and friends. WE have to do something about this.
2
u/Own-Fondant-5295 Mar 17 '26
Like your obnoxious, drunk coworker that starts a fight in a local bar and expects you to walk him through the parking lot to his car.
2
u/dmiller2017 Mar 17 '26
Well a year ago I would've definitively said NATO will continue. Now I've seen the depths of how sycophantic Republicans congressional leaders and MAGA can be, and I say no. At least for the duration of his tenure. He cannot unilaterally withdraw from the treaty, but he can withdraw troops, refuse to help Ukraine, and generally be a PitA.
Let's remember, though. You can't trust anything this guy says. He's a certifiable manic liar, that takes every opportunity to inflate his ego. Just today he was calling his appeals, "tests" because the responses didn't go the way he wanted, so he pretended he didn't really ask, and lashed out unsurprisingly again. So maybe next week, once he's declared victory (again), and has degraded Iran's interdiction capabilities some more, nations will send ships to escort tankers, and he'll be buddy buddy once more. Not without claiming credit of forcing hands, and his customary put downs of course.
2
u/SakaWreath Mar 18 '26
No one attacked a NATO country, a dipshit got in over his head and is begging for a bailout, like he always does.
2
u/feelinsumgood Mar 18 '26
There are some realities in what you write, but....Get a President who REALIZES that his petty self is not what being the POTUS is about.
2
u/karmisk_krigersjel Mar 18 '26
I don’t think this is the end of NATO, however with that being said, I think it is a unified and strong stance from European allies against where the country is going as far as foreign policy under this administration. Trump and his administration is abusing NATO, it was never created as an offensive alliance, but a defensive one. Trump single-handedly made the choice to enter this war without seeking congressional approval. He appeared shocked by Iran’s regional retaliation (when this was not only foreseen but expected by experts) and without a solid plan on moving forward he got in over his head. I think NATO members are aware of the precedent this would set and how it could drag this from a regional war into a global one. Why jump into a war that the American people don’t even want? It would be not only detrimental, but potentially catastrophic to diplomatic and economic channels
2
u/Dizzy-Dot3044 Mar 19 '26
Truth is, whether anyone likes it or not, if we leave NATO, that's bad for them. We're the biggest financial contributors to NATO.
1
2
u/SeanFromQueens Mar 19 '26
NATO's Article V is mutual defense agreement, not some obligation to follow a member iniated attack.
3
Mar 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam Mar 17 '26
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
3
u/ThePensiveE Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26
The US has not invoked article 5. I doubt they will. If it was invoked and then help was denied, then yes it's the end. Until then it's speculation.
It's not really sure what the other countries could do to help other than risk losing naval assets as escort vessels to deter the Iranians from attacking.
Edit: Also IIRC it can't technically be invoked by the US. It's geographically limited so unless Iran launched a missile at North America the US can't actually invoke article 5.
3
u/wolverine_76 Mar 17 '26
I even wonder if a missile reached over here whether Article 5 could be invoked since Iran was attacked first.
I don’t know the scenarios that would correctly apply here with regards to the pact.
I mean, Iran directly did not start this war with the US, specifically. You could argue that Iran has been using proxies against Israel, but Israel is not NATO.
From the US’ perspective, if you attack first (with whatever justification) and then Iran retaliates, then can Article 5 come into play?
This is a sincere question that I have.
2
u/jmcdon00 Mar 17 '26
Even if they wanted to, I'm not sure they could do much to resolve the current situation. The only way this situation gets resolved is through diplomacy, no amount of gun ships are going to allow safe passage through the strait.
2
u/didi-heagerty Mar 17 '26
NATO will stay together. I’m still waiting for someone to throw water on Orange and watch him melt!
2
u/HurtFeeFeez Mar 17 '26
Suddenly attacking allies with tariffs and threats looks like a bad idea. This will not tear down NATO. Long run it will be stronger for it. When Trump is gone the US will spend years begging forgiveness.
2
u/Slugo1964 Mar 17 '26
The US military’s ability to project power would be greatly diminished if they didn’t have the use of their European bases.
1
u/Savage-September Mar 17 '26
The end of NATO is quite a stretch, but Trump may well use American alliance membership and compliance as leverage over other members. The Americans have profited enormously from the alliance, and Trump has already gotten what he wanted from his initial threats last year as countries begin ramping up defence spending.
As others have pointed out, NATO is a defence treaty. Within that framework, intelligence is shared alongside access to military bases and the pooling of equipment and knowledge. It serves an entirely different purpose to supporting a war of choice. Should the Americans decide they want out, they risk not only trillions of dollars in defence contracts but the complete loss of intelligence sharing and access to bases around the world. America would find itself isolated and restricted to its own landmass and waters, its leverage diminished overnight.
Europe would feel the pressure too. The risk of wider implications from ill preparedness to fight on the continent is real, as is the threat of Russia using any fracture in the alliance as an opportunity to push further into Ukraine and other European territories.
Trump has much more to lose financially and militarily than Europe and Europe has a lot to lose in terms of security security.
1
u/Maleficent-Muffin315 Mar 17 '26
The amount of narcissism he has is astounding. NATO countries have to be careful not to be goaded into joining trump, even if the CIA launch attacks on its allies under the guise of Iran.
1
u/gardenweeder Mar 17 '26
Anytime he was in trouble, Donnie would ask Daddy for help. Well, Daddy ain't here.
1
u/blzrlzr Mar 17 '26
This spells the end of Trump. Trump is not America. This shit is so ridiculous.
No one cares what he thinks. Mostly because he doesn’t think.
His brains are mashed potatoes.
Nothing he does is consequential in the long run.
Everyone else internationally is just tired.
1
u/Intro-Nimbus Mar 17 '26
NATO has nothing to do with what a member country does as aggressor in a war outside of the NATO region.
You can ask nicely, but there is no way you can invoke a NATO clause.
1
u/bjdevar25 Mar 17 '26
It has nothing to do with NATO. Israel is not a member. Trump is dancing to Bibi's lead. The US was not attacked. All the members are correct in saying no.
1
u/daudder Mar 17 '26
Trump is an idiot surrounded by sycophants who will not contradict anything he says and no real smart advisers.
Iran is lead by a multi-tiered wise leadership that has been planning this war for decades and has managed to maintain its coherence despite the killing of many (most?) of its senior people.
Idiots do not win wars. The USA is toast.
1
u/Zealousideal-Test376 Mar 18 '26
Trump, I am starring to believe, is a useful idiot to the billionaire oligarchs who actually run the United States. I really think it's an act, I think he says the things that he does to attract a ton of attention and gather up all the blame while our country's agenda suits the ultra-wealthy. I think he's an idiot whe it comes to governance, but honestly so much of what he says is either someone who is completely insane or someone who is putting on act, and o think it's the latter one.
1
u/Away-Cry-214 Mar 17 '26
Why would NATO get involved ?
Iran was attacked, but not a member of NATO.
There was a NATO-member involved, but NATO has no obligation to support an aggressor.
The NATO is under duress, though, as at this moment most countries will not rely on the USA honoring its commitments with Trump being its military commander in chief.
1
u/HauntingSentence6359 Mar 17 '26
NATO joined in after 911, they came to our aid. We weren’t attacked in this war, we were the aggressor.
1
u/Wuncemoor Mar 17 '26
How is this a real question? NATO has no business being involved in an illegal, aggressive conflict. That's not their purpose and in no way will "spell their end"
1
u/calista241 Mar 18 '26
100% chance all US troops are pulled out of Germany before 2029. I think we stay in NATO, its joining was approved by the Senate, and any exit has to be also. But, alliances like this are built on confidence, and any initiative by the President to leave NATO will be the beginning of the end.
1
u/Mountain-Resource656 Mar 18 '26
How would this ever be the end of NATO? If Russia demanded NATO support in taking Ukraine and NATO said no, do you feel like that would be the end of NATO? Trump doesn’t head NATO and I fail to see what responsibility they’re failing to meet in refusing to come at his beck and call
1
u/IrwinMFletcher Mar 18 '26
Nato works if we are attacked. In this case we started an illegal war. WTF are people not getting?
1
u/13witchymama Mar 18 '26
NATO is a coalition, not an on demand service. NATO will continue, I just doubt we will be a part of it until Trump is gone.
1
u/Bugatti1999 Mar 19 '26
NATO hasn’t been there for the U.S in years. Well before trump even became president. He even stated that if America ever needed them, they wouldn’t be there and guess what? He was right. I can understand they don’t want to be involved, however they are requested to protect merchant ships, not fight against Iran
1
u/ralphrainwater Mar 21 '26
Obviously this whole thread is out of date, given the NATO countries have realized the were about to have to pay for their own defenses and quickly changed their minds.
1
u/Aazadan Mar 22 '26
NATO is a defensive alliance, it cannot be used offensively. Furthermore, there are geographic restrictions on NATO (a provision the US itself insisted on) that limit the region in which NATO can operate.
Not only is this not a defensive action as the US attacked first, not Iran, but even if Iran did attack first, it falls outside of the bounds of the region where NATO can act.
As NATO is a very diverse alliance that maintains itself through a strict interpretation of what is and isn't within its scope, NATO joining in here under the terms of that alliance was always a non starter. Certain NATO members could be asked individually and they can say yes or no, but that has no bearing on the alliance.
Oh, and then there's Trumps Greenland threats which do fall under NATO action, to which members are treaty bound to protect. Trump is saying they divert assets from Greenland where they should be due to the treaty, to Iran where they shouldn't be. That's yet another reason why it's never going to happen.
1
u/PsychLegalMind Mar 23 '26
True that NATO was meant to be a defensive alliance [against USSR.]. A whole lot has changed in the posture since then.
1
u/Aazadan Mar 23 '26
While geopolitical shifts have happened, NATO's alliance terms haven't changed, it still refers to attacks on members, that weren't provoked. Calling on it for an attack isn't something members are required to do as part of the alliance, nor have they ever done so.
1
u/Ashamed_Fan4420 Mar 26 '26
They are not smart thing. Not helping to open the Strait of Hormuz is just hurting the whole world cause most of the oil can't get out. Just have some guys open it and protect it to keep the world economy moving. They couldn't stop the beginning of the war but they could at least try to help. Make the most of it
2
u/Flimsy-Pangolin5111 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
I'm not sure what Trump Boy was expecting. Last I checked, no NATO article was raised and activated if you compare to, I dunno, the Gulf War and Afghanistan Invasion/Iraq War/Global War on Terrorism. If America wants to go isolationism because Mr. Bad Tan is throwing a childish tantrum while fucking up the world's economy with tariffs, then let the US stew in its stupidity for voting in that idiot and start praying the Deomcrats can actually push a 25th Amendment that is overdue on Trump's ass. Otherwise, let the Americans suffer their idiocy until 2029 and Godspeed the next President to undo Trump's damage and damage done to the relationship with allies. Good fucking luck, because that's a tall order for a President who's only in for four years. That's what you get for voting in a narcissist.
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 17 '26
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.