[I wrote this three years ago and updated it today based on the Iranian Conflict. I do it because I see no major changes coming.]
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) currently has 32 member countries united by the motto “All for one, one for all,” reminiscent of the Three Musketeers. However, this alliance raises concerns: some members are unstable and could provoke attacks that others would be obligated to defend, while certain nations harbor animosity toward the U.S. Recently, Denmark got into a spat with the U.S. over Greenland, with Washington threatening to take control “whether they like it or not,” straining ties within the alliance. Why should the U.S. be bound to defend every member? At the onset of the Cold War, NATO served a purpose, but that era has long since ended.
The principle of collective defense, enshrined in Article 5, which declares an attack on one as an attack on all, sounds noble, but does it hold up? On September 11, 2001, terrorists struck the United States, and while most NATO allies contributed to the response, participation was uneven. The U.S. deployed over 1 million troops, while the rest of NATO sent 300,000, despite Europe’s NATO countries having a combined population nearing 1 billion, dwarfing the U.S. population of roughly 340 million. Some members sent no troops, and Canada cut and ran in 2011; so much for solidarity.
Take Norway, an original NATO signatory, which offered a weak excuse for denying fuel to a U.S. vessel. Or consider Turkey: in 2003, it barred American troops from using its territory as a staging ground for the Iraq invasion. Does anyone honestly believe Turkey would rush to America’s aid in a crisis?
Here’s another twist, contrary to common belief: While the UK and France were in NATO, both were once part of the now-defunct Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), yet neither sent troops to Vietnam. The U.S., meanwhile, sacrificed over 58,000 young lives in that conflict. NATO members have only recently started meeting the alliance’s old defense spending target of 2% of GDP, mostly under pressure from ongoing threats like Russia’s war in Ukraine, but that’s yesterday’s benchmark. Now there’s a new push for 3.5% on core defense by 2035 as part of a 5% total on defense and security, and only a handful, like Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, are hitting that mark. The rest are still effectively freeloading off U.S. military might, with America accounting for over 60% of the alliance’s total spending despite the population imbalance. This imbalance undermines NATO’s strength.
The alliance is increasingly obsolete in a world shaped by new powers like China and other parts of Asia, as well as evolving problems in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Look at the ongoing mess with Iran in 2026: The U.S. and Israel launched massive strikes starting February 28 under Operation Epic Fury, taking out Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and hitting nuclear sites, missile facilities, air defenses, and other military targets across Iran to degrade its nuclear and ballistic capabilities and push for regime change. Iran retaliated with waves of missiles and drones targeting U.S. bases, Israel, and Gulf allies, closing parts of the Strait of Hormuz and escalating regionally, including strikes that drew in places like Cyprus and even a missile intercepted over Turkey by NATO air defenses.
NATO? Nowhere to be seen as a collective force. Secretary General Mark Rutte explicitly stated that NATO “is not involved” and there are “absolutely no plans” for the alliance to get dragged in, though he praised the U.S.-Israeli actions for degrading Iran’s threats and noted individual allies might provide enabling support like logistics or intercepts. Sure, NATO systems shot down a stray Iranian missile heading toward Turkey, and the alliance adjusted postures for potential threats, but that’s defensive housekeeping, not stepping up offensively or committing troops when America shoulders the main burden yet again. This hands-off approach in a major Middle East crisis outside Europe’s borders highlights how NATO remains Eurocentric and unwilling (or unable) to mobilize for U.S.-led operations beyond its traditional turf.
Leaving NATO would allow the U.S. to make custom deals with nations rather than sticking to an outdated setup. We would be free to tailor partnerships with individual nations. The current setup risks entangling the U.S. in unwanted conflicts, think of Turkey’s regional disputes or the recent addition of Finland and Sweden, whose proximity to Russia could spark trouble, especially with Moscow’s forces still bogged down in Ukraine.
Exiting NATO would let the U.S. sidestep these time bombs and focus on defending our interests on our own terms. In short, we don’t need it anymore.
The writings here are in the nature of a blog. Unlike most blogs, the most recent post is under this pinned post. There is no specific topic; I like to write occasionally. Be advised, though, that my writing is often in the form of a stream of consciousness. I know the overall theme. Then, I start writing until I get to what I believe is the end. Sidetrips are inevitable, but I get back to the point.
