What Exactly Is the Purpose of NATO in the Year 2026? There is no clear answer.

[rangerrebew]

What Exactly Is the Purpose of NATO in the Year 2026?
There is no clear answer.
by Josh Hammer
April 3, 2026, 12:04 AM
 
One month into Operation Epic Fury against the Islamic Republic of Iran, a long-overdue conversation has finally broken into the open: What, exactly, is the enduring rationale for NATO? For decades, this question has been treated in Washington foreign policy circles as heretical. But it isn’t. And to their credit, President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are now saying so plainly.

As Trump recently put it, “They haven’t been friends when we needed them. We’ve never asked them for much. … It’s a one-way street.” Rubio has been similarly blunt: “If NATO is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked but then denying us basing rights when we need them, that’s not a very good arrangement. … So all that’s going to have to be reexamined.” (RELATED: Trump Delivers Europe’s Much-Needed Wake-Up Call)



They’re spot-on.

At best, America’s European “allies” have spent decades free-riding on the U.S. security umbrella. Despite repeated commitments to meet baseline defense spending targets, many NATO members still under-invest in their militaries and outsource their national defense to American taxpayers. The imbalance is staggering: The United States accounts for the overwhelming majority of NATO’s military capabilities, logistics, and strategic lift. Overall, American taxpayers contribute about 60 percent of total spending on NATO defense.

At worst, some of these same European allies actively undermine U.S. operations at critical moments. Major Western European countries such as Spain and France have restricted or complicated U.S. use of their airspace during Operation Epic Fury. That is farcical. A so-called alliance in which members obstruct one another’s ability to wage war is not actually an alliance — it is a liability.

This raises the core question: Why, exactly, does NATO exist in the year 2026?

https://spectator.org/what-exactly-is-the-purpose-of-nato-in-the-year-2026/

[rangerrebew]

The EU doesn't want to be pinned down to defending itself without the US.

[The_Reader_David]

All the NATO sceptics from Trump on down need to be reminded that the one and only time Article 5 of the NATO treaty was invoked was in response to the 9/11 attack on the US, and that our allies, abiding by the terms of the treaty, came to our aid in Afghanistan:  the Brits held a province, the Norwegians went into battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban shouting "Til Valhal!", the Romanian contingent even built a church -- Holy Trinity Kandahar -- where they and any other Orthodox Christians worshipped while serving there... (I have a godson, who worked unexploded ordinance in Afghanistan and first encountered Orthodoxy there).

The point is mutual defense, which does not include automatically signing up to help with any offensive military action one of the members decides to launch without consulting the others and getting their support.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

All the NATO sceptics from Trump on down need to be reminded that the one and only time Article 5 of the NATO treaty was invoked was in response to the 9/11 attack on the US, and that our allies, abiding by the terms of the treaty, came to our aid in Afghanistan:  the Brits held a province, the Norwegians went into battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban shouting "Til Valhal!", the Romanian contingent even built a church -- Holy Trinity Kandahar -- where they and any other Orthodox Christians worshipped while serving there... (I have a godson, who worked unexploded ordinance in Afghanistan and first encountered Orthodoxy there).

The point is mutual defense, which does not include automatically signing up to help with any offensive military action one of the members decides to launch without consulting the others and getting their support.

Is it 'offensive' to respond to the deaths and destruction caused by Iran directly and indirectly over the past 47 years? 

Do you need someone to repeat all they many ways their 'offensive' behavior has been inflicted upon the US during those times?

You must be simply a compliant individual who chooses not to engage no matter what someone does to you.

I choose not to and support the US in the current engagement to stop the atrocities past, present and future that evil regime inflicts.

[The_Reader_David]

Is it 'offensive' to respond to the deaths and destruction caused by Iran directly and indirectly over the past 47 years? 

Do you need someone to repeat all they many ways their 'offensive' behavior has been inflicted upon the US during those times?

You must be simply a compliant individual who chooses not to engage no matter what someone does to you.

I choose not to and support the US in the current engagement to stop the atrocities past, present and future that evil regime inflicts.

If you think Iranian actions warrant the invoking Article 5 the same way the actions of the Afghan-hosted al Qaeda did on 9/11, then Trump should have done so before launching the war.  Instead, he never laid out a case to anyone, not to our allies to justify appealing for them to join us, not to the American people to garner public support.  He just started the war with the backing of Israel and rhetorical encouragement from the Saudis and GCC and expects people who weren't consulted to help when things don't go the way he hoped simply because we're in a mutual defense treaty.  Heck, he didn't even invoke Article 4 to call for consultations about Iran's actions. 

I don't think Trump actually understands NATO, or diplomacy, or war.  He seems to think that by talking tough, insulting people and hurling weapons at an adversary without any clear picture of what victory would look like he can will into existence a "deal" beneficial to America's interests. He's then shocked to find out that's not how the world works and demands that countries that had our back post-9/11 when they were approached properly should get him out of the bind he's in because he's too stupid to have listened to all the folks in the intelligence community and DoD who'd wargamed Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz, after he's verbally abused them, their leaders and the treaty that binds us with them.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If you think Iranian actions warrant the invoking Article 5 the same way the actions of the Afghan-hosted al Qaeda did on 9/11, then Trump should have done so before launching the war.  Instead, he never laid out a case to anyone, not to our allies to justify appealing for them to join us, not to the American people to garner public support.  He just started the war with the backing of Israel and rhetorical encouragement from the Saudis and GCC and expects people who weren't consulted to help when things don't go the way he hoped simply because we're in a mutual defense treaty.  Heck, he didn't even invoke Article 4 to call for consultations about Iran's actions. 

I don't think Trump actually understands NATO, or diplomacy, or war.  He seems to think that by talking tough, insulting people and hurling weapons at an adversary without any clear picture of what victory would look like he can will into existence a "deal" beneficial to America's interests. He's then shocked to find out that's not how the world works and demands that countries that had our back post-9/11 when they were approached properly should get him out of the bind he's in because he's too stupid to have listened to all the folks in the intelligence community and DoD who'd wargamed Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz, after he's verbally abused them, their leaders and the treaty that binds us with them.

You totally misread what I wrote.  Read it again.

You stated it is an offensive military action taking place.

I stated it is not, and ask why you said it was offensive.