
NATO summit yields a big win on defense spending for Trump but key questions over the alliance remain
Noordwijk, Netherlands
CNN — NATO leaders convening Wednesday
NATO leaders convening Wednesday in the Netherlands were prepared to offer President Donald Trump a major win by boosting their defense spending targets.
But comments he made while flying to the conference were raising fresh concerns about his commitment to the alliance's core principal of collective defense.
The split dynamic — where leaders tailored their gathering to appeal to Trump, even as he questions the core provision of membership — made for a charged atmosphere as the conference was getting underway at The Hague.
Trump vowed to stand alongside fellow NATO nations a day after hedging in his support for the alliance's Article 5 pact, which says an attack against one member is an attack against all.
'We're with them all the way,' Trump said. 'If you take a look at the numbers, we're with them.'
He called a pledge to be agreed to Wednesday by NATO countries to increase their defense spending 'very big news.'
'NATO is going to become very strong with us,' he said.
Trump, who spent the night at a Dutch royal palace after flying from Washington, was set to attend the summit's sole plenary session before meeting on the sidelines with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky and holding a press conference.
He'll spend fewer than 24 hours in the Netherlands, an intentionally truncated visit that NATO leaders designed specially to keep Trump's attention and ensure he didn't have time to blow up the intended display of unity.
The central outcome of the summit — a pledge by members to boost defense spending to 5 percent of GDP in a decade, up from the current target of 2 percent — is exactly what Trump has been demanding over the past several years.
The final communiqué in which the spending target will be affirmed will be dramatically shortened, omitting any controversial language that might spark resistance from the United States.
And while Ukraine and its president are still on the agenda, the country's war with Russia will take a far less prominent place than in NATO summits past, a sign of the differences emerging between Europe and Trump over how to resolve the conflict.
NATO chief Mark Rutte, whose relationship with Trump extends back to his years as Dutch prime minister, elected to place the spending targets at the center of the summit and made sure to credit Trump for making it happen in a private message that Trump later posted on social media.
'You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done. Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win,' Rutte wrote, before wishing the US president a safe journey to the Netherlands.
The fawning tone prompted some private eyebrow raising among European officials, but Rutte denied any discomfort when a reporter asked Wednesday whether the episode wasn't a little embarrassing.
'Absolutely not,' he said. 'What is in that text message is a statement of fact and I'm totally fine that he shared.'
As it turned out, Trump didn't actually have to be at the NATO summit in order to raise fresh concerns about his commitment to the alliance, which he's not been shy about criticizing in the past.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump stopped well short of offering a full-throated endorsement of the alliance's cornerstone Article 5 pledge of collective defense.
'It depends on your definition. There are numerous definitions of Article 5,' Trump said when asked about his commitment to the pledge, before adding: 'I'm committed to being their friends and I'm committed to helping them.'
It was not quite the show of support many European leaders had hoped for, though few officials voiced surprise at Trump's comments as the summit was getting underway.
For his part, Rutte said he was unconcerned about Trump's NATO commitment.
'For me there is absolute clarity that the United States is totally committed to NATO, totally committed to Article 5, and yes, there is also an expectation — that will be fulfilled today — that the Canadians and Europeans will speed up their spending,' he said.
This story has updated with additional developments.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


See - Sada Elbalad
2 hours ago
- See - Sada Elbalad
Rubio: Trump Rules Out Military Solution to Russia-Ukraine War
Nada Mustafa U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that President Donald Trump made it unequivocally clear that the war between Russia and Ukraine must come to an end, emphasizing that a diplomatic solution is the only viable path to resolve the conflict. In a post on the social media platform X, following the NATO–Ukraine Council meeting, Rubio reiterated Washington's stance, saying, 'There is no military solution to this conflict, only a diplomatic one.' Earlier, Head of the Ukrainian Presidential Office, Andriy Yermak, held discussions with Rubio regarding preparations for an upcoming meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump, set to take place on the sidelines of the NATO Summit in The Hague on June 24–25. read more Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685 NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided News Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks News Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank News Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region News One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Videos & Features Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall Lifestyle Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt Business Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War Arts & Culture Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies News Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks Videos & Features Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream News Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan Technology 50-Year Soviet Spacecraft 'Kosmos 482' Crashes into Indian Ocean


Al-Ahram Weekly
2 hours ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Prisoner's dilemma in the Israel-Iran escalation - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
The US' role in Israel's war against Iran can be understood in terms of game theory. In the wake of US President Donald Trump's announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, several pressing questions have emerged regarding the nature of the agreement and on whether the ceasefire can hold between two enemies after years of a 'hidden' conflict that escalated into an air war that included 12 days of mutual strikes. There is also the question of the US role, particularly following the US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. The situation is growing more complex by the day, as it becomes evident that all the actors involved are facing profound political and military dilemmas. Achieving a zero-sum outcome or a decisive resolution seems highly unlikely, given the intertwined interests, competing priorities, and looming risks of the powers concerned. These dynamics recall one of the most iconic concepts in game theory, the prisoner's dilemma. This illustrates how two rational actors, in the absence of mutual trust, may make decisions that lead to suboptimal outcomes for both. Applying this framework to the US-Iran situation, we see a similar mistrust. Washington doubts that Tehran will de-escalate or halt its provocations, while Iran suspects the US will never withdraw its support for Israel. Both therefore lean towards escalation or threats thereof, even though temporary cooperation such as a ceasefire could avert more severe consequences. This fundamental paradox hinders the emergence of a balanced political resolution. Within this framework, it is essential to dissect the underlying rationale behind Trump's decision to enter the conflict between Israel and Iran. This move appears to be driven by a complex fusion of political ambition, strategic calculation, and domestic constraints. Trump, ever conscious of his historical legacy, likely seeks to be remembered as a transformative leader who took a history-shaping decision like former US president Harry Truman's decision to end World War II in the Asia-Pacific by using the atomic bomb against Japan. Trump's own record is filled with symbolic yet controversial moves, such as the relocation of the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem in 2018, which he often indicates as a defining moment of political courage and defiance of global pressure. While the embassy move generated political capital with key constituencies and incurred no immediate military cost, it also promoted long-term regional instability with potential economic and security repercussions. Along with tracing the US role throughout the conflict, Trump's decision to offer a two-week window to Iran may stem from multiple intersecting calculations. The most prominent of them is the potential for strategic deception. The deadline could be a calculated bluff aimed at catching Iran off guard with a swift military strike. Trump's reputation for unpredictability may be part of the strategy to maximise the psychological impact of the strike and minimise Iranian preparedness. Yet, following the initial strikes on Iranian targets, it is now clear that the US under Trump's direction has entered a war with Iran, a conflict that even he admits could escalate further. Three major unknowns now dominate the landscape. First, how will Iran respond? While Tehran may seek a strong counterattack to restore deterrence, its capacity to do so may be constrained. Second, have the US and Israeli strikes crippled Iran's nuclear ambitions or inadvertently accelerated them? There is now a genuine risk that Iran may conclude it needs nuclear weapons more than ever. Third, is this the end of the conflict or just the beginning? Even if its enrichment facilities are destroyed, Iran's nuclear expertise cannot be bombed out of existence, indicating that the underlying conflict is far from resolved. Given these complexities, the US strikes on Iran can be seen as a calculated escalation that is expected but measured. The choice of a limited strike strategy targeting major nuclear facilities such as Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow falls within the constitutional powers of the US president to launch short-term operations. This avoids triggering a formal declaration of war, which is the exclusive domain of the US Congress. Trump thus prefer a 'middle way' a significant, yet limited action designed to send a message without dragging the US into a broader regional war, at least not for now. TURNING POINT: In this regard, the US strikes on Iran represent a fundamental turning point in its political doctrines in terms of weakening the Iranian nuclear programme, as they demonstrated the US willingness to change course regarding its decades-long policy of not striking Iran. As a result of the US desire to withdraw from the Middle East, Tehran gained many victories and enabled it to believe that it would be able to expand wherever it wanted. Strategically, the strikes mark a shift in US policy driven by two key considerations, Firstly, there is an attempt to balance internal divisions within the 'America First' (MAGA) Movement in the US, which urges caution and is wary of being drawn back into the Middle East just as the US had been reducing its military footprint. A forceful Iranian response could push the US towards deeper military entanglements. It could also entail enormous operational risks and financial burdens. Moreover, Trump's explicit disagreement with CIA Director Tulsi Gabbard on Iran's nuclear programme, even though she was appointed by Trump himself, reflects deeper fractures within the national security establishment in the US. Critics from this camp argue that escalating on behalf of Israel compromises US interests, while others advocate for a decisive military strike on Iran and strongly support backing for Israel, viewing military escalation as necessary for regional deterrence. However, this second path contradicts broader US national security doctrines that increasingly prioritise China as the primary threat. Any large-scale military commitment in the Middle East would divert resources from the Indo-Pacific theatre, thereby undermining America's strategic pivot towards countering Chinese influence. Secondly, the strikes served as a test of Iran's willingness to return to the negotiations on its nuclear programme under pressure. Should Iran accept American conditions and return to the talks from a weakened position, Washington would achieve a strategic win, though one that may not align with Israeli objectives. Conversely, if Iran retaliates by attacking US interests further or its allies, it could justify a full-scale US war effort, potentially triggering Congressional authorisation. It could spark a full-scale war with a superpower, risking catastrophic consequences for Iran ranging from military collapse to a prolonged period of chaos like post-invasion Iraq or Afghanistan. On the other hand, restraint and the acceptance of a ceasefire without retaliation would amount to strategic defeat, a shattered nuclear programme, an exhausted military, and a dramatic loss of regional influence, weakening Iran's bargaining power to lift sanctions. IRAN'S RESPONSE: As expected, there has been a limited Iranian response when it launched several missiles at the US Al-Udeid base in Qatar without leading to any injuries or loss of life. Iran needed such a response to the US strikes in an attempt to demonstrate responsiveness to the Iranian streets and hardliners within the political system who are demanding a more forceful response. Despite indications that this Iranian response was not only limited, but was also fully coordinated with the US and Qatar, what happened threatens to provoke further US strikes and a greater escalation, which may push Iran to carry out more of its previous threats against targets in the region. This means that Iran will likely not be able to insist that this 'pre-planned and pre-announced strike' will not lead to Trump responding by another larger strike on Iran or giving the green light for a fatal strike on Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, let alone further large-scale attacks by Israel, which would also prolong the conflict. In terms of its maximum pressure strategy, this would involve closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20 per cent of the world's oil supply passes. This scenario would cause significant disruption to global energy markets, potentially leading to a sharp rise in oil prices, with the price of a barrel of oil expected to reach $130. This would have widespread global economic repercussions, particularly for oil-importing countries and emerging market economies. It would have a direct impact on the US, but Iran's closing of the Strait of Hormuz remains an unlikely option, given the negative consequences it would have for Tehran itself. Such a measure would not yield any significant strategic benefit and could even prompt harsh retaliatory responses and expose it to international pressure, particularly from China, the largest importer of Iranian oil, as well as ships using alternative routes via the UAE and Oman, reducing the effectiveness of the threat. More importantly, most of the daily consumer goods Iran relies on also pass through the strait, meaning that Iran would be the first to suffer from its closure. Complete control of the strait also seems unlikely, given that most of its waters fall under Omani sovereignty, and its width, which ranges between 35 and 60 nautical miles, will make it difficult for Iran to establish complete control over it or permanently disrupt it The limited US strikes against Iran appear to be a calculated effort to balance political pressures against the risk of broader war. Trump sought to act decisively without igniting a full-scale conflict, while sending a strong message about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet, the situation has now entered an unpredictable phase, where all options are on the table. * A version of this article appears in print in the 26 June, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:


See - Sada Elbalad
2 hours ago
- See - Sada Elbalad
Sisi Exchanges Greetings with Arab, Islamic Leaders on Islamic New Year
Nada Mustafa President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi exchanged greetings with Kings, Presidents, and Emirs of Arab and Islamic countries, on the occasion of the beginning of the Islamic New Year 1447. In his messages, President Sisi extended his warmest congratulations and best wishes to his fellow Arab and Islamic leaders, wishing them, their brotherly peoples, and all Muslims around the world a blessed year filled with goodness, peace, and stability. The President also sent a congratulatory message to Egyptian Muslims abroad, which was conveyed through Egypt's embassies and consulates around the world. In his message, he wished them success and prosperity in the new year. In addition, Sisi received congratulatory messages from senior state officials on the occasion of the Islamic New Year 1447, expressing their heartfelt greetings and best wishes for Egypt's continued progress and prosperity. read more Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685 NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided News Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks News Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank News Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region News One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Videos & Features Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall Lifestyle Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt Business Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War Arts & Culture Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies News Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks Videos & Features Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream News Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan Technology 50-Year Soviet Spacecraft 'Kosmos 482' Crashes into Indian Ocean