By Xie Ruiqiang and Qiu Zishuang
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal on April 8, the Trump administration is considering punitive measures against certain NATO member states that did not support US military operations against Iran. These measures may include redeploying US forces stationed in Europe, withdrawing troops from countries that failed to support the operations, and shifting them to allies more aligned with US strategy. Meanwhile, the US side may also close at least one military base in Europe, with Germany and Spain seen as potential targets.
Since the outbreak of the US-Iran-Israel conflict, Trump's dissatisfaction with NATO has continued to escalate. He has repeatedly urged European and other allies to participate in escort operations in the Strait of Hormuz, while complaining that some allies have shown little enthusiasm in assisting the United States.
From a policy perspective, the so-called punitive measures reflect Trump's long-standing distrust toward NATO. As early as the 2016 presidential campaign, he described NATO as an obsolete organization. After taking office, he repeatedly criticized European allies for free-riding and demanded that they significantly increase defense spending.
Jian Junbo, a scholar on European affairs at Fudan University, noted that the current divergence over the Iran issue serves more as a trigger. He noted that Trump has consistently argued that Europe should assume greater responsibility for its own security and has been inclined to withdraw US forces from the continent. The lukewarm response of European countries on the Strait of Hormuz and the Iran issue has further reinforced his position.
The passive response of NATO member states is justifiable. Jian Junbo analyzed that, on one hand, many European countries generally view the military action against Iran as "a war of the US," and the US side did not conduct sufficient consultations with its allies in advance. On the other hand, the operation lacks authorization from the United Nations, raising concerns over its legitimacy among European countries. In addition, recent frictions between the United States and Europe in the economic and trade fields have further weakened Europe's willingness to align with US strategy.
Trump's remarks about withdrawing from NATO are, in essence, a continuation of his habitual tactic of “maximum pressure.” Lv Yunmou, head of the European security program at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), noted that Trump's public attacks on NATO have consistently served as a coercive tool. Since his first term, Trump has repeatedly used the threat of withdrawing from NATO as leverage. Even after returning to the White House for more than a year, his skepticism towards NATO has never ceased.
In terms of outcomes, this form of coercive alliance management has not been without effect. For example, on the issue of assistance to Ukraine, European countries have in recent years gradually assumed a greater share of the costs. At the NATO Summit 2025, many European countries also accepted the target of raising defense spending to 5 percent of GDP. This, in turn, has reinforced Trump's preference for dealing with Europe by means of maximum pressure. He has thus sought to replicate similar tactics on the Iran issue by “penalizing” countries that do not cooperate, in order to strengthen leverage over allies.
In Lv Yunmou's view, even a moderate version of punitive measures against NATO carries clear risks of backfiring. On one hand, directly using military deployments as a tool of reward and punishment could seriously undermine the credibility of the United States within NATO.
On the other hand, Europe is not entirely passive in the face of such pressure. Confronted with the prospect of reduced US security commitments, European countries have already begun to discuss the path toward accelerating strategic autonomy.
Under such circumstances, a "soft exit" may in fact be a more realistic path. Lv Yunmou pointed out that even without a formal withdrawal, the United States could achieve a de facto exit from NATO by reducing participation and weakening its commitments. For example, it could decline to support or take part in NATO-led operations, or refuse to send representatives to meetings at various levels.
In fact, both the Trump administration and previous Democratic administrations have promoted a strategic shift toward the Indo-Pacific, while reducing security input in Europe. Against this backdrop, the reduction of commitment to NATO has, in essence, gone beyond partisan lines and become a continuation of policy. As a result, there is no prospect of any substantive action within the US to prevent Trump from advancing such policies. This also means that, regardless of whether the US formally withdraws from the alliance, the traditional foundations of the transatlantic relationship have already been shaken.
Editor's note: Originally published on thepaper.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.