NATO Archives - CrossFireArarbia

How Trump Burned Western Friendships

CrossFireArabia
May 7, 2026

By Jassem Al-Azzawi

Something remarkable is happening today in the corridors of western powers. America’s closest allies are no longer whispering their frustrations behind closed doors; they are now shouting them from the podiums of their parliaments and in press conferences. And US president Donald Trump is responding in kind. The transatlantic alliance, painstakingly built over eight decades, is now fracturing in a live broadcast.

The immediate cause is the American-Israeli war on Iran, launched on 28 February, 2026, without consulting NATO partners, United Nations, or even Washington’s closest friends. But the rift runs deeper than a single conflict; it reflects a strategy that is indifferent to its allies, or even openly contemptuous of them.

“The Americans clearly lack a strategy.”

The breaking point was starkly illustrated in the frank remarks made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to students in Marsberg, northwest Germany. Merz likened the conflict with Iran to past US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It’s clear the Americans don’t have a strategic plan,” he said, describing Washington’s approach as “ill-conceived.”

He went even further, suggesting that the US was being “humiliated” by Tehran’s negotiating tactics which is a stunning public accusation from a Chancellor who, until recently, was one of Washington’s most hawkish European allies.

Trump reacted furiously, writing on his TruthSocial platform that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and threatening to reduce the number of US troops stationed in Germany, currently at 36,436. He then told the German chancellor to mind his own business:

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, where he has been completely ineffective, and fixing his own battered country… rather than meddling in the affairs of those who are eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat.”

This verbal sparring is transcending all diplomatic norms and is shakening the foundations of the US-European axis.

Starmer: “I’m fed up,” he says publicly.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer invested considerable political capital in cultivating a working relationship with Trump, but that investment has now proven costly. When asked about Trump’s threats to destroy Iran, Starmer told ITV:

“These are not words I would ever use, because I speak from our British values and principles.”

The harshest language came when Starmer placed Trump alongside Vladimir Putin as partners in causing British economic hardship, telling Talking Points:

“I’m fed up with seeing families and businesses across the country struggling with fluctuating energy bills because of Putin’s or Trump’s actions around the world.”

On British military involvement, Starmer was unequivocal: “I will not change my mind, and I will not back down. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so.” Trump rewarded this initial stance with a statement to The Sun newspaper: “Starmer has not been cooperative. The relationship is clearly not what it used to be,” he said.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund underscored the scale of the material risks by lowering its 2026 growth forecast for Britain to 0.8 percent. This is a direct consequence of the energy shock Trump’s trade war has inflicted on British households.

Sanchez and Carney: Europe and Canada Draw a Line

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has emerged as the most vocal European leader in his criticism of Trump and his uncompromising stance. After Trump threatened to sever all trade ties with Madrid following Spain’s refusal to allow US troops to use the Rota and Morón air bases, Sanchez did not back down. When the ceasefire was announced, his judgment was scathing:

“A ceasefire is always good news, but this temporary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, destruction, and lives lost. The Spanish government will not applaud those who set the world ablaze just because they have finally appeared with a bucket of water.”

For his part, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offered a broader structural indictment, stating in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney:

“Geostrategically, dominant powers are increasingly acting without restraint or respect for international norms and laws, while others bear the consequences.”

He described the war as “a failure of the international order,” adding that “the United States and Israel acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada.”

The alarm bells were not only ringing abroad; Senate Democrats launched a fierce campaign to reclaim congressional authority over a war they deemed illegal, unauthorized, and a diplomatic disaster.

Senator Tim Kaine’s diagnosis was accurate: “There was no clear justification, no clear plan, and no effort to engage allies or Congress. When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.”

Senator Chris Murphy was even more blunt.

“We have never seen a foreign conflict so publicly mismanaged. We have become a laughingstock around the world, while hurting Americans who are now paying billions more in fuel prices.” Senator Tammy Duckworth linked the current disaster to America’s post-World War II pattern, saying:

“Our duty is to ensure that our nation never again slides into an endless, self-serving war.” Despite this, all six war powers resolutions introduced by the Democrats failed due to Republican loyalty to Trump, even as the war cost the lives of 13 Americans in its first month and the price of a gallon of gasoline reached $4.30.

Time for reckoning has come…

Whether Trump’s antagonism toward allies is a strategic dismantling or simply the impulsiveness of a leader who confuses aggression with strength, the result is the same. He threatened to withdraw from NATO, imposed trade sanctions on Spain, threatened to withdraw troops from Germany, and pushed the “special relationship” with Britain to the brink of collapse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning also came to light.

Trump will “re-examine” Washington’s commitments to allies who did not support the war, as a declaration of “conditional friendship.”

America’s friends are being pushed away, its adversaries are watching, and the West, for the first time since 1945, is genuinely unsure whether it can rely on Washington.

Jassem Al-Azzawi is an Iraqi writer and journalist who contributed this article to the Arabic website, Al Rai Al Youm and appears in Crossfirearabia.com.

News

Trump Threatens to Leave NATO But Can He?

CrossFireArabia
April 2, 2026

US President Donald Trump on Thursday urged the members of NATO to gather the courage to send naval vessels to the Strait of Hormuz, again disparaging the longtime military alliance.

Asked why he had not mentioned NATO in his Wednesday night address to the nation, Trump said it was not a NATO speech but that he had referenced the strait and those who were absent. “They gotta get guts and go in and just send your ships up there and enjoy it,” he told Politico.

Pressed on whether he was frustrated with the alliance, Trump said: “I couldn’t care less. I didn’t need them.”

He added: “But if I ever did need them, they wouldn’t be there.”

NATO has invoked Article 5 – its collective defense clause – just once in its history, after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. NATO allies have criticized Trump for starting the war on Iran without consulting them.

The remarks are the latest in a string of pointed criticisms Trump has directed at NATO over its response to the Strait of Hormuz crisis. He has previously called alliance members “cowards” and, in a separate interview with British daily The Telegraph, described NATO as a “paper tiger” and said leaving the alliance was “beyond reconsideration.”

Leaving NATO unilaterally – a move Trump has hinted at since his first term – would face significant legal hurdles. A 2023 law bars any US president from withdrawing from the alliance without the backing of a two-thirds majority in the US Senate.

The strait, through which roughly 20 million barrels of oil pass daily, has been effectively disrupted since early March following Iranian measures taken in retaliation for the US-Israeli offensive on Iran that began on Feb. 28.

Trump has repeatedly urged European allies and Gulf states to take a more active role in securing the strait, arguing that countries dependent on its oil should bear responsibility for reopening it.

Trump will meet with NATO chief Mark Rutte in Washington next week, according to The Wall Street Journal. Anadolu

Opinion

The Middle East Octopus

Dr Khairi Janbek
March 29, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When we think of contemporary Iran, one always believes that the Arab Middle East had always been dominated by three Non-Arab American allies: Iran of the Shah, Turkey and Israel. One thinks that those “neighborhood police stations” were the guarantors of stability through their convergence, and at times contradictions in the age of Cold War and oil. However, the Shah of Iran was deposed and the anti-communist Cold War ended, but that didn’t mean that oil stopped becoming important nor that both Russia and China were no longer threats.

One would say, that the rehabilitation of Iran and possibly turning it into a negotiations partner aims at keeping the third angle of the police stations triangle going, because non of the Arab countries, no matter how much they tried, could never replace Iran, because no “Arab police station” is permitted to emerge as a third angle.

Having said that, it would be beyond naive to think that the expansion of Iran’s power and influence happened by stealth or escaped the notice of the US and NATO. After all, Iran grew to become a Red Sea country through its influence on the Houthis in Yemen, a Mediterranean country through its influence in Syria as well Lebanon through Hezbollah, and the major Gulf country through its supporters in Iraq. In fact this Iranian domination of space is what has created a common space between all its long arm organizations in the region.

Essentially, if we compare Iran to an octopus, all those various groups are its tentacles, and they all serve the purpose of Iran’s strategic interests, albeit not through a push-button approach, but through not taking any action which would not please their master Iran. Of course, this puts Iran in a strong position to be a major player in the region and an inescapable negotiations partner for the US, which is also convenient for the Americans, in order to remind their Arab allies who is their protector in a region policed by Turkey, Israel and Iran.

Of course, this takes us to the point of saying that, for all intents and purposes, for the Americans a trusted adversary is more important than distrusted friends, and that it would be absurd to think that all those long arms of Iran in the Arab world can be amputated by military means; they certainly can be weakened, but without the consent of Iran and without the right price, so long as it remains behind them, nothing much can change.

At this point, from what one can only see, is that no one in their right mind or otherwise, will permit a war to emerge in which Israel is pitted against Iran and the US as well as NATO putting all their weight behind Israel and forcing the Arabs to choose their camp. That would be the scenario of the end of the world as we know it , or with major civil wars in the Arab countries controlled by the tentacles of Iran, and no one wants that.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris

Opinion

Mad President and Street Brawl

CrossFireArabia
March 1, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

People from my generation remember a pop group which used to sing a song called the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Now, they were not themselves lunatics but merely performing for their audience and their fans, in the same manner. Neither Trump nor his band wagon are necessarily a bunch of thugs, but they are merely performing for their fans and audience.

However one cannot find any reason for world leaders to go to the Oval Office in order to provide US president Donald Trump with the material to entertain his fans and audience.

He ambushed King Abdullah of Jordan with the entry of journalists when that was not supposed to happen in order to market his absurd Gaza plan, president Emmanuel Macron of France provided him with the opportunity of posturing as an antagonist to the EU, prime minister Keir Starmer provided him with the opportunity of showing what Britain was groveling for – a free trade agreement and a role of being a bridge between the US and EU.

Ironically however, the worst of the Trump performance was left for Volodymr Zelensky, though his trip was the only one that made sense.

Zelensky for all intents and purposes, went to sign an agreement to hand the resources of Ukraine to America, but suddenly the situation deteriorated to almost a street brawl. Why? The whole thing was agreed upon by both sides from the start.

Of course, Zelensky expected a protection commitment from the USA in exchange for the mineral resources, but in fairness, without an explicit US commitment protection would have been implicitly there since supposedly, American companies and workers would be working in Ukraine, so what has actually happened to derail the whole agreement?

Of course, any such agreement with potential implicit US protection of Ukraine, is totally against Russian interests, especially according to some speculation, Putin has the intention to occupy the whole of Ukraine, therefore the talk in the corridors, is that Putin has offered Trump the exploitation of Ukrainian resources in the occupied territories of Russia, which in effect sabotaged the minerals agreement between US and Ukraine, and rescued Trump from having to give security guarantees; albeit implicit to Ukraine.

Now, at the peril of repeating the usual cliche of the EU facing a crossroad on its path, something which had happened frequently, this time it’s in fact different. The truth is that the US has been distancing itself from the EU at least from the days of president Obama, but the difference now is that the EU is being attacked by both the US and Russia, and finds itself as the large leviathan with clay feet unable to move.

The dilemma of differences within the EU are prominent, with full support for Ukraine, with some having lukewarm support, while some with no support at all, moreover the NATO future is hanging in the balance, to keep or not to keep that is the question, but what is the alternative? A European army which is yet to crystallize as an idea, or just drop all the effort?

What it boils down to now, is the idea of leadership of the “Free World”, certainly this notion has always been a nebulous idea, still, the US stood by it and projected its image accordingly, but now, it seems the US is not interested in world affairs except in what it can exploit and use and abuse for its own interests, which means, who will be the new leader of the Free World?

In fact, is there a need for a leader of the free world assuming that there is such a world? If the EU has any such pretensions, then big changes are necessary within its membership as it must be realized the road is very long for such an objective. But in the mean time, we have to settle for the theory of the mad president, ie. Trump would do anything, and peace by force with an oxymoron.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris.

Opinion

Seismic Shift Across The Atlantic

CrossFireArabia
February 25, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Even before Trump’s coming of age, which is a long way away, or more accurately so, coming to power, one often wondered about the status of the European Union (EU) in the world of changing circumstances and the existential meaning of its presence on the world power map among the increasing differences among its member states.

Although and frankly, differences always existed within the Union, the Russian invasion of Ukraine made those differences more acute, sharper and penchant materializing between those Europeans fearing being next on the Russian menu, those who want an assertive position against Moscow, those reluctant either way, and those who are out rightly pro-Russia.

Evidently, having unity among the 27 European countries which are not necessarily different in their political structures, yet having necessarily different strategic interests end up with infighting, recriminations and threats.

As well what makes things near-impossible, is that the EU does not have a mechanism to expel a fellow-member from the Union, so one is always beleiving that there is hope that an obtrusive member of the Union would walk out voluntarily in the manner made by the British Brexit.

Now it is more complicated. Not only the EU is having to deal with a possible Russian threat, but also a looming trade war with the US that is compounded with the distinct possibility that America may be withdrawing its protection umbrella from Europe.

Of course, this legitimately raises the question about the future of NATO; a question which was raised before especially after the demise of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. This ultimately means a new form of a military alliance will be required for the EU.

Ideally, one would have thought a smaller EU entity, leaner and meaner, with incorporation of Britain in it, would the best option, while the rest of Europe, from its center to its eastern side, hitched by accords with Russia and the USA.

This would be far better instead of the current large European crippled Levathian with Britain running like a headless chicken proposing to be the bridge between the USA and EU, a link both sides of the Atlantic believe it’s too far a gap for any meaningful effect.

Having said all that, there is a window of opportunity now with the new government in Germany, showing more courageous initiatives in wanting to see a reset of the Atlantic relationship, which falls well with President Macron of France, the other core member of the EU which has the idea of creating a single European army to protect the EU and its interests.

When it comes to transnational trade, the absurdity of the war of tariffs will hurt all including the American economy, though European companies whose main market is in the USA will go and invest in America, but those US companies whose main market is Europe, will invest in the EU.

Essentially, the seismic shift in relations across the Atlantic is set to commence with most probably less profits but more fairness.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France