Imagine for a moment the alternative. In the hours immediately after a successful beheading attack, instead of criticism and hand-wringing, the leaders of the European Union and NATO are stepping forward, in line with Washington and Jerusalem, and saying: We stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States and Israel; Iran will never possess a nuclear weapon; and the removal of this leadership has made the world a safer place.
Consider how Tehran would have handled that – not as a tactical setback, but as strategic isolation. Think about how Beijing and Moscow would have read it: a West that is united, decisive and willing to act together. That kind of clarity not only ends a news cycle, it changes behavior.
Instead, we saw hesitation. In fact, even NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged that some allies responded more slowly than the moment required. That matters. Because at times like these, speed and unity are not cosmetic, but strategic.
NATO CHIEF SIGNALS ALLIES MAY MOVE INTO HORMUZ, WARNS OF ‘UNSAULT HEALTH’ TO US
I’ve spent enough time within the system—both in business and as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union—to recognize when frustration is tactical and when it is structural. Donald Trump’s irritation with NATO falls squarely into the latter category. It’s not a passing complaint. It is a fundamental disagreement over what the alliance should do – and whether it still has the will to do so.
NATO proudly defines itself as a defensive organization. Fine. But let’s be clear about what “defense” actually means in 2026. It doesn’t mean politely waiting for the next missile strike or the next proxy attack to kill Americans or Israelis. In the real world, defense involves deterrence, disruption and, if necessary, decisive action against actors who have made their intentions clear for decades.
Iran has been running that playbook for 47 years: dead American soldiers, attacks on shipping and a brutal campaign against Israel, one of the West’s most important allies. This is not theoretical. It’s not episodic. It’s persistent hostility.
So if the United States takes steps to reduce that threat, even in a limited and targeted way, the expectation from Washington—and especially from Trump—is not that NATO will join the fray. It’s much simpler than that. Let’s use bases. Give us airspace. Provide political cover. Stand with us publicly.
MORNING GLORY: PRESIDENT TRUMP LEADS THE WEST TO BIG WIN AGAINST IRAN
And yet, time and time again, the response from parts of Europe has been hesitation, legal hand-wringing and carefully calibrated distance.
That’s what’s driving Trump’s frustration.
Let’s discuss the issue of prior notice since it has become a topic of conversation. Critics argue that not fully briefing allies before sensitive operations is disrespectful or destabilizing. That is a topic of conversation in Washington that does not survive contact with reality.
In an alliance of this size, with so many domestic constituencies and internal divisions, leaks are not hypothetical – they are a certainty. Anti-war factions, dissent at staff level, political maneuvering – all carry risks. And when you’re talking about high-value goals or leadership decapitation, surprise is not a luxury. It’s the mission.
TRUMP IS RIGHT ABOUT NATO’S WEAKNESS – THE REAL QUESTION IS HOW AMERICA FOLLOWS THIS
The psychological impact of those operations is just as important as the physical outcome. You want the opponent to be disoriented, off balance, and unsure of what comes next. That only works if you maintain operational integrity. So no, this isn’t about sidelining allies. It’s about making sure the mission is successful.
And let’s not pretend that NATO operates in a vacuum. Allied governments know when tensions are escalating. They see changes in the power posture. They understand at a strategic level what is going to happen. The idea that they are blinded is more political theater than operational truth.
What happens next is what really matters – and that’s where the alliance continues to fall short.
Instead of a collective response – something as simple and powerful as “when and where do you need us?” – we get fragmentation. Statements about escalation. Concerns about legality. Attempts to create daylight between Washington and the European capitals.
From a geopolitical point of view, that is a mistake.
General Kellogg says NATO allies are ‘cowards’ and calls for new defense alliance
Adversaries like Iran don’t just look at what the United States is doing. They look at how the West aligns itself when it does that. A united front – even if only the United States and Israel carry out attacks – has a huge psychological impact. It indicates that the alliance is strong, that political support is strong, and that there is no easy way to divide and exploit.
When that unity cracks, even rhetorically, it invites testing. It tells Tehran that there is room to maneuver, push incrementally and escalate in ways that fall below the threshold of a unified response. In the long term, this increases the costs of deterrence and increases the risk of a much larger conflict in the future.
Trump understands this instinctively. He is not looking for consensus for consensus’s sake. He is looking for something to hold on to.
NATO chief says the world is ‘absolutely’ safer under Trump
And influence, especially with regimes like Iran, does not come from endless negotiations. It comes from pressure – economic, military, psychological. Negotiations become productive when the other party believes the alternative is worse. Until then, they’re just buying time.
That is not a theoretical criticism. It’s an observed pattern.
European leaders often have a different position, rooted in decades of prioritizing diplomacy and avoiding escalation. I understand that instinct. But there is a difference between diplomacy backed by force and diplomacy that takes its place.
STEVE FORBES: IRAN’S NUCLEAR MADNESS LEAVES AMERICA AND ALLIES NO ROOM TO BLINK
If the latter becomes the standard, you will not get stability. You get erosion.
And eventually you get opponents who think they can act with relative impunity – until the only options left are much more extreme.
This is where burden sharing comes back into the picture. The United States continues to bear a disproportionate share of NATO’s financial and military burden. That’s not controversial – it’s arithmetic. Even NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has acknowledged that Europe has been slow to ramp up defense spending and response capabilities.
TRUMP SAYS HE’S CONSIDERING WITHDRAWING US FROM NATO DUE TO THE WAR POSITION IN IRAN
So when Washington asks for access, cooperation, or even unequivocal political support, it is not an unreasonable request. It’s the basic expectation of an alliance where one member does the heavy lifting.
What Trump is actually saying is this: If we subscribe to the system, the system must work when it matters.
To be fair, European governments do not operate in a vacuum. Domestic politics are important. Public opinion is important. There is great skepticism about military action, especially in the Middle East. Leaders must navigate that reality.
TRUMP RATES MACRON ‘AN 8’ AS FRANCE AND US RULE ON MIDDLE EAST STRATEGY
But leadership is not about reflecting public hesitation. It’s about shaping public understanding – especially when the stakes keep getting higher.
There are times when you have to take your people with you and not hide behind them. Moments when the right answer is not to deviate, but to lead.
This is one of those moments.
TRUMP AND RUBIO FACE WITH NATO CHIEF AS US MOVES TOWARD A ‘RE-EXAMINING’ ALLIANCE AFTER IRAN COLLISION
Because the alternative is a slow erosion of deterrence. A pattern in which the United States acts, Europe distances itself and opponents adapt. That’s not a stable equilibrium – it’s a glide path to a bigger crisis.
And here’s the uncomfortable truth: If that crisis comes after years of incremental escalation, the options available at that time will be far worse than those being debated today.
That is the strategic risk embedded in Europe’s current posture.
DAVID MARCUS: IN TRUMP’S WAR DEPARTMENT IT’S SOLDIERS – NOT EXPERTS – WHO MAKE THE CLEAN
Trump’s approach – pressure first, negotiate later – is not universally popular. But it is based on a clear understanding of how regimes like Iran operate. They do not respond to gestures of goodwill. They respond to credible threats.
Or, to put it more bluntly, negotiations tend to work when the other side feels like she’s on the ground, bleeding, with a gun to the nation’s forehead.
That’s not elegant language. But it reflects a real dynamic.
ECONOMIST EDITORIAL SAYS EUROPEAN LEADERS NOW FEAR OF A TRUE NATO ‘SEPARATION’ AFTER TRUMP DRAW
The question for NATO, then, is not whether it agrees with every American decision or every presidential instinct. That’s not how alliances work. The question is whether it is willing to act as a strategic partner when push comes to shove.
Because alliances are ultimately judged on behavior, and not on communiqués.
Right now there is a gap between what NATO says it is and how parts of it behave under pressure. Trump shouts that out – forcefully, sometimes inelegantly, but not inaccurately.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
Closing that gap does not require Europe to become something it is not. It requires clarity, consistency and a willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder – even as the operational burden falls primarily on the United States.
Sometimes leadership means explaining to your audience why action is needed.
Sometimes it means you have to act first and then take them with you.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
And sometimes it simply means answering the call with the words we don’t hear nearly enough right now:
“When and where do you need us?”
CLICK HERE TO FROM GORDON SONDLAND
