From its founding in 1949 to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was the most successful military alliance in history. It was the principal instrument in deterring a globally aggressive Soviet empire and ultimately winning the Cold War. With that victory and the effective end of communism as a worldwide military threat, however, NATO lost its central reason for existing. The last 35 years have been a deeply troubled search for a new identity and purpose.
Ironically during this latter period NATO has doubled in size – from 16 to 32 nations – while at the same time growing progressively weaker and less effective as a military force. As reflected in their chronically delinquent financial contributions and shrinking national armies, it is clear that non-US NATO members do not value the alliance in the same way they did during the Cold War. What they do value is the permanent guarantee – i.e. Article 5 – provided by the American military umbrella, beneath which they continue to shelter nearly 40 years after the end of the Cold War.
The event that seemingly rejuvenated NATO was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which launched the misadventure of NATO's proxy war against Russia despite the fact that Ukraine was not a member, or an ally, of what had historically been a purely defensive alliance. Nonetheless the Biden Administration enthusiastically championed this proxy war – “in it to win it”, and “as long as it takes” – based on the demonstrably false premise that Vladimir Putin's Russia (economy smaller than Italy) was as great a menace to the world as Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II.
In the decades since the end of the Cold War, NATO's European members have adhered to a near-uniform pattern of decreasing their spending on defense and reallocating those resources to their increasingly generous entitlement programs. This approach worked very well as long as the United States could be relied upon to do all the heavy lifting whenever events required the exercise of genuine military might (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq). Over time their contributions became more nominal and outright opposition to US military policies became more frequent.
The election of the second Trump Administration in 2024—owing greatly to voter disillusionment with 20 years of “forever wars,” culminating in the national humiliation of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan which surrendered that country to the same Taliban fanatics we had routed 20 years before—brought about a dramatic sea change in America's attitude to foreign intervention.
Trump's robust declaration of “America First” was viewed by Europeans as an alarming and shocking aberration rather than a self-evident reflection of the way all leaders prioritize their countries’ interests over those of other nations. Trump made clear the US would continue to honor America's obligations to NATO but henceforth on a basis of genuine reciprocity, not the Europeans preferred approach of “Here America, we’ll hold your coat while you go and fight and pay with your people's blood and treasure.”
The breaking point in this long unequal partnership came in the opening weeks of the Iran war when President Trump called upon America's allies to assist in reopening the Straits of Hormuz – a task vital to most of NATO's energy-dependent nations.
French President Macron rejected the request, bluntly stating that his country “was not a party to the conflict.” British Prime Minister Starmer refused to send British warships into the conflict zone or initially even permit US planes to use British bases in the region.
Perhaps the most insulting was the response of German Chancellor Merz who reproached Washington for not “consulting the German government before the war”, while adding that “to this day there is no convincing plan for how this operation could succeed.” This from the same German government that just weeks before had actually sent combat troops to Greenland to defend the Danish colony in the event of possible American aggression.
President Trump's blistering response was to call NATO a “paper tiger” and accuse its leaders of being “cowards," while reminding them that America “will remember” how those we defended for decades turned their backs to us today. Within 48 hours six major NATO allies – U.K., France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Canada – pledged their support for reopening the Straits of Hormuz while leaving entirely undefined the When or the How.
The final outcome of the war against Iran's terrorist regime will have immense geopolitical consequences. If the United States succeeds, we shall have done so without the slightest help from those we long referred to as “our indispensable NATO allies.“
William Moloney studied history and politics at Oxford and the University of London and received his doctorate from Harvard University. His articles have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, The Hill, The Washington Post, Washington Times. Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post and Human Events.