NATO chief says US ‘totally committed' to collective defense pledge
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said on Wednesday that the United States was 'totally committed' to the alliance's mutual defense clause, after President Donald Trump appeared to cast doubt on it.
'For me, there is absolute clarity that the United States is totally committed to NATO, totally committed to Article Five,' Rutte told reporters ahead of a summit meeting of alliance leaders.
On his way to the summit, Trump refused to commit to NATO's Article Five clause, the basic agreement that says an attack on one member is an attack on all.
'Depends on your definition. There's numerous definitions of Article Five,' Trump told journalists in comments sure to rattle America's European allies.
'I'm committed to being their friend,' he said.
Rutte said that there was, however, an 'expectation' that the Canadians and the Europeans would ramp up their spending, with the US long complaining that it paid too much to defend countries in Europe.
NATO allies, later on Wednesday, are to sign off a pledge to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on core defense spending -- just over the current US level -- plus another 1.5 percent on broader security-related areas such as cybersecurity and infrastructure.
'This is fair, that we spend the same as the US is spending,' said Rutte.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
40 minutes ago
- Arab News
Iran and the craft of politics
For decades, Iran's patience has not been merely a political tactic, it has been a way of life in how the country navigates crises, negotiations and power projection. But the recent war with Israel, which lasted for 12 days of unprecedented military escalation — including a US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and Tehran's retaliatory attack on the American Al-Udeid base in Qatar, followed by President Donald Trump's announcement of a ceasefire — tested this model in an unprecedented manner. The question now is: Is this model still valid or is it time for a fundamental shift in Tehran's political doctrine? Since the revolution in 1979, Iran has been known for a foreign policy approach that combines ideological pragmatism with long-term patience in managing complex challenges, especially under sanctions and international isolation. Many analysts have labeled this approach as 'strategic patience,' a term that describes not just the regime's behavior but also reflects deeper traits of the Iranian national character, rooted in its cultural and historical legacy. The metaphor of Persian carpet weaving is often invoked to describe this mindset: a slow, meticulous process that unfolds not under pressure but in accordance with an internal rhythm of precision and long-range vision. Just as crafting a Persian carpet can take years of detailed work, so too does Iran build its foreign policy, step by step, thread by thread, through cumulative, deliberate moves rather than sudden leaps. But the recent Iranian-Israeli war has changed many equations. For the first time, the confrontation moved beyond proxy battles to a direct exchange, with strikes hitting targets inside both Iran and Israel. The turning point came when Trump ordered a precise strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, reasserting America's role as a military actor, not just a distant negotiator. Iran's response was swift yet calculated: targeting the Al-Udeid base in Qatar, home to US forces, in what it described as a 'measured warning' rather than a declaration of war. This rapid and volatile escalation brings Iran's strategic patience face to face with a new geopolitical era Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy This rapid and volatile escalation brings Iran's strategic patience face to face with a new geopolitical era — an era of precision missiles, drone warfare, real-time diplomacy and a shifting regional map that does not wait for anyone to finish weaving their political carpet. And yet, Iran's response did not appear impulsive. While the Al-Udeid strike was bold and direct, it came 72 hours after the US attack, following internal deliberations and calibrated messaging. Tehran signaled clearly that it was retaliating but not escalating. It remains within its familiar logic: punish without provoking all-out war, respond without crossing the point of no return. This dynamic echoes an old anecdote from the Iran-Iraq War. In 1980, an Arab politician reportedly warned his Iraqi counterpart during the early days of the war: 'Don't celebrate your initial victories too soon. A war with Iran is never short. This is a people who spend 10 years weaving one carpet, they will endure even longer in war.' It seems that Iran has not abandoned that long breath, even in the age of fast-moving conflict. The real transformation, however, lies not in Iran's military behavior but in how patience is being redefined within its strategic doctrine. Previously, patience served as a tool for negotiation and building leverage. Today, it has increasingly become a way of absorbing global chaos and delivering timed responses — carefully selected and publicly claimed, but tightly controlled. Looking back at Iran's behavior over recent years, one sees the same disciplined pattern: calculated delays in the nuclear talks, indirect power-building through regional proxies, and strategic ambiguity when it comes to responsibility for attacks. But the latest war laid these methods bare, putting them under a global spotlight at a moment when options are narrowing, margins are shrinking and pressure is mounting. So, the key question is no longer whether Iran has strategic patience but whether today's world still allows it to be an effective tool. Waiting is no longer a virtue in itself, but a component in a more agile, more assertive strategy Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy It could be argued that Iran is not abandoning patience but rather redefining it. Patience no longer means abstaining from action, it means responding with precision, without falling into the trap of prolonged attrition. Waiting is no longer a virtue in itself, but a component in a more agile, more assertive strategy. Today, with Trump announcing a ceasefire, Iran emerges as a player that lost nothing essential: it responded militarily, maintained its deterrent image and benefited from a Qatari-mediated de-escalation that likely came with new diplomatic channels or concessions. In this, we see a new face of Iran's patience: assertive patience. Patience that enables a response, not only restraint. Patience that preserves control while wielding credible threats. But this approach is not without its limits. Domestic pressure is growing, the regional landscape is fluid and technological escalation leaves little room for slow maneuvers. That is why the question is no longer: Does Iran possess strategic patience? Rather, it is: Is the regional and global tempo still compatible with this model of slow, deliberate endurance? Perhaps the answer lies in adapting rather than abandoning. Iran may not be able to wait 10 years for every policy outcome, as the old carpet metaphor suggests. The craft remains, but the pace must evolve. Like the modern Persian carpet, sometimes produced in six months with new tools and techniques, Iranian strategy may need to integrate faster, more responsive tactics without losing its long-range character. Between the roar of missiles and the whisper of weaving needles, Iran remains a state that excels at survival. But the greater test now is not how long it can wait, but whether it can change while waiting.
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump Insists Iran Nuclear Program Set Back 'Decades'
President Donald Trump insisted Wednesday that US strikes led to the "total obliteration" of Iran's nuclear capabilities and set the country's atomic program back "decades", while Israel said it was still early to fully assess the damage. Over a 12-day conflict, Israel pounded Iranian nuclear and military sites while Iran launched waves of missiles at its foe during their deadliest-ever confrontation. The United States joined the fray in support of its ally, hitting two nuclear facilities with massive bunker-buster bombs over the weekend, while a guided missile from a submarine struck a third. But leaked US intelligence cast doubt on the damage caused by American strikes, saying they had set back Tehran's nuclear program by just a few months. "They're not going to be building bombs for a long time," said Trump, adding that the strikes had set back the program by "decades" and that the Iran-Israel ceasefire that he declared was going "very well". Earlier, Israel's military said it was "still early" to assess the damage caused to Iran's nuclear program, AFP reported. "I believe we have delivered a significant hit to the nuclear program, and I can also say that we have delayed it by several years," said Israeli military spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin. The head of Israel's military, Eyal Zamir, on Tuesday said Israel and the United States had set back Iran's nuclear program "by years". But US media on Tuesday cited people familiar with the Defense Intelligence Agency intelligence report as saying the American strikes did not fully eliminate Iran's centrifuges or enriched uranium stockpiles. The strikes sealed off entrances to some facilities without destroying underground buildings, according to the report. Israel had said its bombing campaign, which began on June 13, was aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, an ambition Tehran has consistently denied. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in an address to the nation after the ceasefire, announced that "we have thwarted Iran's nuclear project". "And if anyone in Iran tries to rebuild it, we will act with the same determination, with the same intensity, to foil any attempt," he said.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
UK's King Charles invites Trump for state visit later this year: Palace
Britain's King Charles has invited US President Donald Trump for a state visit later this year, Buckingham Palace confirmed on Wednesday. Trump accepted an invitation from Charles for a second state visit in February, making the US president the first elected political leader in modern times to be hosted for two state visits by a British monarch, but the timing of the trip was not clear.
