With defence spending set to rise, Trump reassures NATO allies
NATO leaders were set to sign up on Wednesday to a big increase in defence spending at a short summit tailor-made for US President Donald Trump, who struck a reassuring tone on his commitment to protecting fellow members of the alliance.
The summit is expected to endorse a higher defence spending goal of 5 per cent of GDP - a response to a demand by Trump and to Europeans' fears that Russia poses a growing threat to their security following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged that it was not easy for European countries and Canada to find the extra money but said it was vital to do so. "There is absolute conviction with my colleagues at the table that, given this threat from the Russians, given the international security situation, there is no alternative," he told reporters.
DEBATE OVER NATO MUTUAL DEFENCE PLEDGE
Speaking to media before the summit opened, Trump played down concerns over his commitment to mutual defence among allies as set out by Article 5 of NATO's charter, saying: "We're with them all the way."
The debate has been fuelled by Trump's own comments en route to the summit on Tuesday. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, he had said there were "numerous definitions" of the clause.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb, whose country borders Russia and joined NATO two years ago, said the alliance was evolving. "I think we're witnessing the birth of a new NATO, which means a more balanced NATO and a NATO which has more European responsibility," he told reporters.
SPENDING TO JUMP BY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS
The new spending target - to be achieved over the next 10 years - is a jump worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the current goal of 2 per cent of GDP, although it will be measured differently.
Countries would spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on core defence - such as troops and weapons - and 1.5 per cent on broader defence-related measures such as cyber security, protecting pipelines and adapting roads and bridges to handle heavy military vehicles.
All NATO members have backed a statement enshrining the target, although Spain declared it does not need to meet the goal and can meet its commitments by spending much less. Rutte disputes that but accepted a diplomatic fudge with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez as part of his efforts to give Trump a diplomatic victory and make the summit go smoothly. Spain said on Wednesday that it did not expect its stance to have any repercussions.
TRUMP TO MEET ZELENSKYY
Rutte has kept the summit and its final statement short and focused on the spending pledge to try to avert any friction with Trump.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had to settle for attending the pre-summit dinner on Tuesday evening rather than the main meeting on Wednesday, although he was set to meet Trump separately.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban diluted the display of unity when he told reporters that NATO had no business in Ukraine and that Russia was not strong enough to represent a real threat to NATO.
The Kremlin has accused NATO of being on a path of rampant militarisation and portraying Russia as a "fiend of hell" in order to justify its big increase in defence spending.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump says he 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear programme. So does he need a deal?
US President Donald Trump says he doesn't need a nuclear agreement with Iran, but the fact is that Iran, Israel and the United States are all back to posturing for talks after a nasty 12-day conflict between the two arch foes culminated in the US bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. Iran's foreign minister on Wednesday hinted that his country could pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran's tightly controlled parliament symbolically voted to ban inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from the country. Current and former US officials tell Middle East Eye they are reading the Iranian moves as setting up bargaining chips for negotiations that Trump said will take place next week. Not to be outdone, Trump, a self-declared master negotiator, is playing it cool. On Wednesday, he said the US's "obliteration" of Iran's nuclear sites made a deal with Iran a moot point, but he would talk to the Islamic Republic anyway. 'The only thing we would be asking for is what we were asking for before…we want no nuclear, but we destroyed the nuclear… it's blown up to kingdom come. I don't care very strongly about it. If we got a document, it wouldn't be bad,' Trump said on the sidelines of a Nato summit in the Hague, Netherlands. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Israel is also positioning itself. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the war was a 'historic victory' for Israel. His office said on Wednesday that Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment facility had been rendered 'inoperable' by US strikes. Signalling and damage assessments As the dust settles from the conflict, everyone is scrambling to understand how much damage the US strikes did to Iran's nuclear programme - and it's led to a number of strange developments. For example, the Trump administration has cited the Islamic Republic of Iran as a source to push back against American media leaks that claim US strikes did little to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities. On Wednesday, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said the country's nuclear facilities had been 'badly damaged' by the American strikes. That's not quite as conclusive as Trump's claim that they had been 'blown up to kingdom come". Trump doesn't think Iran deal needed after facilities 'blown up to kingdom come' Read More » The discrepancy is part and parcel of battle damage assessments, current and former US officials tell MEE. BDAs are open to political interpretation and manipulation. It's never-ending,' one US official told MEE. The conflict, which saw missiles rain down on Tel Aviv, and Israel obtain control over Iran's skies, took a head-spinning turn after the US joined Israel in offensive operations. An Arab official previously told MEE that Iran had received advance warning of the US strikes on its Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities. Amwaj Media first reported that Tehran was notified before the US attacked. MEE later reported that Iran carefully choreographed its response to the US attack, with enough signalling that the US knew to move its warplanes and heavy equipment out of al-Udeid air base before Iran shot 14 ballistic missiles at the base. It was the same number of bunker buster bombs the US dropped on Fordow. Trump confirmed the warning and thanked Iran profusely for it. Trump still wants a deal The urgency of nuclear talks might say more about the damage done to Iran's programme and its willingness to advance enrichment than any battle damage assessment. Trump has 43 months left in office - enough time to ride out Iran if his assessment of total obliteration is correct. 'Trump could probably forget about the programme the rest of his presidency,' Frank Lowenstein, a former Middle East negotiator in the Obama administration, told MEE. 'But Trump would still like to be able to say that he got a deal,' Lowenstein said. 'Trump would still like to be able to say that he got a deal' - Frank Lowenstein, former Mena negotiator But Trump's own vice president, JD Vance, has conceded that strikes on Fordow and Natanz aside, the administration does not know the whereabouts of Iran's 60 percent enriched uranium. 'We are going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel, and that's one of the things that we're going to have conversations with the Iranians about,' Vance told ABC on Sunday. Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director of the IAEA, admitted that his team lost track of the fuel that could be turned into nuclear weapons a week before Israel began its attacks, and that he believed the material was protected. Dennis Ross, who served as a senior official on Middle East issues in Democratic and Republican administrations, told MEE that to 'cement any achievement', Trump still needs a negotiated understanding with the Iranians. "Without an agreement, there is no way to know that the Iranians have given up the nuclear weapons option. That is especially true with the Iranians having secreted away their highly enriched uranium,' said Ross, now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Nuclear deal or 'never-ending' war Iran has yet to announce that it will give up enriching uranium, the big stumbling block to talks before Israel's attack. One former US intelligence official told MEE that the only other option to a nuclear agreement would be some sort of 'never-ending Middle East war'. Indeed, Lowenstein said that the option Israel appears to be on track for is to manage Iran like Lebanon or Syria. In the former, Israel has enforced a ceasefire on Iran's ally Hezbollah, and in the latter, Israel bombarded remnants of Bashar al-Assad's armed forces. But in Lebanon, Israel has the Lebanese Armed Forces working to disarm Hezbollah with the support of a wide swath of the population, including the country's prime minister and president. Meanwhile, Syria is war-ravaged. 'The Israelis could police the status quo. But that means blowing up every Russian delivery of air defences to Iran as it looks to rebuild its defences,' Lowenstein said. 'At some point, too, Iran will conduct a purge and plug the intelligence holes Israel exploited. This Israeli operation was 20 years in the making." US and Arab officials say that before Israel's attack, the US and Iran had engaged in fruitful negotiations. One fresh compromise discussed between the two sides was for a nuclear consortium that Iran could join with Arab states. Leverage As the two sides prepare to sit down again, the question will be who has gained more leverage following the conflict. Jonathan Panikoff, a former senior US intelligence official now at The Atlantic Council, said the conflict had 'significantly increased the US's leverage'. He said it had undermined the last two pillars of Iran's three-tiered defence system. The first, proxies, was undermined with Israel's takedown of Hezbollah and the collapse of the Assad government in Syria. Israel also destroyed Iran's air defence systems and, more importantly, its ballistic missile launching platforms. By Iran's own admission, its nuclear programme had been 'badly damaged'. 'The proxies, nuclear programme and ballistic missiles have all been diminished,' Panikoff told MEE. 'There was always scepticism in Tehran whether or not Trump, or any US president, would ever actually bomb the nuclear facilities. Now it's not theoretical. They know if the US sees them starting to rebuild, they are almost sure to invite a US or Israeli strike.' What Iran achieved during the conflict with Israel Read More » The flip side is that, having been the first Middle Eastern state to withstand a full-scale conflict with Israel since 1973, Iran is emboldened. 'Without a deal, Israel and the US are committing themselves to maintaining that Iran does not have air superiority anymore and can strike it at will. Is that sustainable or will it just drive Iran's nuclear programme underground?' Lowenstein said. Iran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes. Before the conflict, experts said Iran was weeks away from enriching 60 percent uranium to 90 percent weapons-grade. But Iran would then have to make a bomb and then put it on a warhead, a process that could take much longer. In addition, in 2003, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a religious ruling or fatwa that has prevented the country from developing nuclear weapons. That ruling stands. The main hurdle to the talks before Israel's attack was whether Iran would be able to continue enriching uranium on its soil in return for sanctions relief. With Iran, Israel and the US in a baseline agreement that the programme is badly damaged, this could leave open space for a compromise. Iran is also keen to prevent the return of so-called snapback sanctions. These multinational and United Nations sanctions were lifted on Iran as part of the 2015 Obama nuclear deal. Despite the Trump administration's unilateral withdrawal from the agreement in 2018, the sanctions remain paused, but that is due to expire in October without an agreement at the UN Security Council. 'Trump is unlikely to soften his red lines, but he could accept some face-savers for Iran,' Ross told MEE. 'I can imagine the Iranians saying they need the right to enrich even if they won't implement it. However, they would need to know that should they then later try to act on the right, President Trump or his successor would respond forcefully to prevent it.' However, having withstood the might of US and Israeli air power, the Iranians might not be in the mood for compromise. 'They proved they would rather be bombed than give up their uranium enrichment. They have come this far. Why go back now?' Lowenstein said.
Sharjah 24
2 hours ago
- Sharjah 24
US intel says strikes did not destroy Iran nuclear program
US media on Tuesday cited people familiar with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) findings as saying the weekend strikes did not fully eliminate Iran's centrifuges or stockpile of enriched uranium. The aerial bombardments and missile strikes sealed off entrances to some facilities without destroying underground buildings, according to the report. US media coverage of the DIA assessment appeared to anger Trump, who insisted news outlets like CNN and The New York Times were out to "demean" the military strike by saying it only set back Iran's nuclear program by a few months. "THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED!" Trump posted in all caps on his Truth Social platform. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the authenticity of the DIA assessment but said it was "flat-out wrong and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked" in an attempt to undermine Trump and discredit the military operation. "Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration," Leavitt posted on X. Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, Steven Witkoff, appeared on Fox News to trumpet the White House version. "The reporting out there that in some ways suggests that we did not achieve the objective is just completely preposterous," he said Tuesday. Witkoff repeated the assertion that the nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo had been "obliterated." "All three of those had most if not all of the centrifuges damaged or destroyed," he said. "In a way it will be almost impossible for them to resurrect that program for -- in my view and in many other experts' views who have seen the raw data, it will take a period of years." US B-2 bombers hit two Iranian nuclear sites with massive GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs over the weekend, while a guided missile submarine struck a third with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Trump called the strikes a "spectacular military success" and said they had "obliterated" the nuclear sites, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Washington's forces had "devastated the Iranian nuclear program." General Dan Caine, the top US military officer, has offered a more cautious tone, saying the strikes caused "extremely severe damage" to the Iranian facilities. Iran's government said Tuesday it had "taken the necessary measures" to ensure the continuation of its nuclear program. "Plans for restarting (the facilities) have been prepared in advance, and our strategy is to ensure that production and services are not disrupted," the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Eslami, said in a statement aired on state television. An adviser to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meanwhile said his country still had stocks of enriched uranium and that "the game is not over." Israel launched an unprecedented air campaign targeting Iranian nuclear sites, scientists and top military brass on June 13 in a bid to set back Tehran's nuclear efforts. Trump had spent weeks pursuing a diplomatic path to replace the nuclear deal with Tehran that he tore up during his first term in 2018, but he ultimately decided to take military action. The US operation was massive, with Caine saying it involved more than 125 US aircraft including stealth bombers, fighters, aerial refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft.
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
What will Trump do next in the Middle East?
The ceasefire between Israel and Iran marks a dramatic culmination of events that have urgently reshaped the geopolitics of the Middle East, leaving many wondering what US President Donald Trump 's next moves might be in the region. His first order of business will be to shore up the fragile truce, which came after the US joined Israel in bombing Iran by striking three nuclear sites at the weekend. Israel also wiped out many of Iran's air defences and hit its senior commanders and officers. Mr Trump on Wednesday said the US and Iran would hold talks next week, raising hopes for a durable peace between Israel and Iran, two rivals that have spent decades waging a rhetorical war that frequently saw Iran strike at Israeli or western interests through an array of proxy groups. 'We may sign an agreement, I don't know,' Mr Trump said at a Nato summit in The Hague. 'The way I look at it, they fought, the war is done." Iran, however, insists it will retain its nuclear programme and appears set to halt co-operation with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, highlighted the unpredictability of Iran's actions and how these might shape the Trump administration's Middle East policies. He said Mr Trump has made a strategic bet that military force will shock the Iranians and force them into making the concessions he wants. "He might be right, he might be wrong. Last time he took a strategic bet like this, in 2018 when he pulled out of the [2015 nuclear deal ], his gamble didn't work out, and Iran enriched more and more. In fact, it started acting [more aggressively] in the region," Mr Vatanka told The National. Before this month's war between Israel and Iran, the Trump administration had been working on a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The Israel-Iran ceasefire will now help that deal come to fruition and secure the release of hostages in Gaza, Mr Trump said on Wednesday, amid reports that talks had picked up pace in Egypt. "It helped a little and showed a lot of power … we were very close to making a deal in Gaza … I think this helped, yes," he said. Iran's nuclear capabilities and its "malign activities", including the funding of proxy groups, have dominated foreign policy conversations and think tank research in Washington for decades. The apparent end of Iran's nuclear programme and the erosion of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas leaves an opening for the US to focus more on what it wants from the Middle East, namely investment and trade deals and an expansion of the Abraham Accords, as shown by the US President's trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE last month. "If Trump can do that, then you can see a region emerging where the focus is on economic development integration, where non-state actors backed by Iran are sidelined," Mr Vatanka said. He said Arab states could gain more leeway to try to persuade the transactional Mr Trump to begin to support a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some Iran watchers have warned that Tehran is unlikely to move quietly into peaceful coexistence with Israel and is going to accelerate its nuclear programme to develop a bomb. "But racing to the bomb is not so simple," noted David Makovsky, director of the Koret Project on Arab-Israel Relations at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "It presupposes that they have the resources and that the world is so distracted that they will let them do that. And I don't see that at this time." Mr Makovsky told The National that some estimates put the total cost of Iran's nuclear programme and sanctions against the regime at about $500 billion. "Not a good investment for the Iranian taxpayer," he said. Experts predict some sort of shift within Iran's ruling power structure, although not necessarily regime change. After the US strikes, Mr Trump on Sunday asked "why wouldn't there be a regime change" in Iran, but on Tuesday he said he opposed such an outcome as it would invite chaos. Enia Krivine, who runs the Foundation for Defence of Democracies' Israel Programme, said Israel and Mr Trump are going to focus on normalisation, in which Arab and other Muslim-majority countries will begin to establish ties with Israel. She also predicted that Mr Trump would use the US air strikes in Iran to push Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza. "There's going to be a lot of pressure on Israel to come to some sort of conclusion in Gaza that everyone can live with," Ms Krivine told The National. "There's probably going to be some trade-off for Trump's operation over Iran. He's a very transactional president, for better or worse."
