As you can imagine, this would have been irksome in the extreme for the president, who might reasonably have expected that the story of the day would be his victory in getting pledges from virtually all Nato’s members to pull their weight in terms of their own defence. Certainly the Nato secretary-general, Mark Rutte, could appreciate the scale of his achievement. Even before the summit, Rutte was talking it up.
“Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,” he wrote in a message to Trump as the US president prepared to fly to The Netherlands. “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.”
The fact that Trump promptly posted this message to his TruthSocial website suggests how important praise is to the the US president. It’s something that many world leaders (including Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin who have become past-masters at pouring honey in the president’s ear) have recognised and are willing to use as a diplomatic tool when dealing with the man Rutte calls “Daddy”.
But while flattery as a tactic seems to be effective with the US president, Andrew Gawthorpe, a political historian from Leiden University, cautions that flattery, appeasement and compliance are a flawed approach when dealing with a man like Trump. For a start, he writes it means that not much actually gets done and that problems are often merely avoided rather than solved.
But more worryingly, simply capitulating in the face of Trumpian pressure or ire risks giving this US president the idea that he can do anything he wants. “When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile,” writes Gawthorpe. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from its victims.
We got a taste of what the US president’s anger at being defied sounds like as he prepared to fly to The Netherlands for the Nato summit. Asked about the ceasefire he had negotiated between Israel and Iran, he lashed out at both countries who had breached the peace within hours of agreeing to stop firing missiles at each other. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing,” he told reporters as he walked to the presidential helicopter.
Psychologist Geoff Beattie, of Edge Hill University, believes this was no accidental verbal slip. Trump wanted to let the world know how angry he was and chose to use the “f-bomb” as a way of showing it. Beattie looks at what this can tell us about the character of the US president – and how it might reflect a tendency to make rapid decisions based on emotional reactions.
And so to Nato
What was remarkable about the Nato summit was that it was condensed to one fairly short session which focused solely on the issue of Nato members’ defence budgets. Usually there’s a much broader agenda. Over the past couple of years the issue of Ukraine has been fairly high on the list, but this time – perhaps to avoid any potential divisions – it was relegated to a side issue.
Perhaps the biggest success for Nato, writes Stefan Wolff, is that they managed to get Trump to the summit and keep him in the room. After all, less than a fortnight previously he walked out of the G7 leaders’ meeting in Canada a day early before authorising the bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear installations (of which more later).
Wolff, an expert in international security from the University of Birmingham (and a regular contributor to this newsletter) believes that the non-US members realised they had little choice but to comply – or at least to be seen to be complying. There’s a significant capability deficit: “European states also lack most of the so-called critical enablers, the military hardware and technology required to prevail in a potential war with Russia.”
So keeping the US president onside – and inside Nato with a remaining commitment to America’s article 5 mutual defence pledge – was top of the list this year and something they appear to have pulled off.
The fact is, writes Andrew Corbett, a defence expert at King’s College London, that Europe and the US have different enemies these days. Europe is still focused on the foe it faced across the Iron Curtain after 1945, against which Nato was designed as a defensive bulwark.
The US is now far more focused on the threat from China. This means it will increasingly shift the bulk of its naval assets to the Pacific (although the Middle East seems to be delaying this shift at present). This inevitably means downgrading its presence in Europe, something of which European leaders are all-too aware.
The importance of continuing US involvement in European defence via Nato was underlined, as Corbett highlights, by a frisson of unease when it appeared that the US president might be preparing to reinterpret article 5, which requires that members come to the aid of another member if they are attacked.
So there was relief all round when the US president reaffirmed America’s commitment to the principle of collective defence. But one feels Rutte will need to use all his diplomatic wiles to keep things that way.
The trouble with Iran
Rutte, who has the nickname “Trump whisperer”, is clever enough to know that emollient words will have been just what the US president was looking for given the stress of the past couple of weeks. The decision to launch strikes against Iran was controversial even within his own base as we noted last week.
But by directly engaging in hostility against Iran, Trump risked embroiling the US in the “forever war” that he always promised his supporters he would avoid. The move was freighted with risk. Nobody knew how Iran might retaliate or how the situation could escalate. There was (and remains) the chance that an angry Iran could try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world’s most important waterways though which 20% of the world’s oil transits. This would have huge ramifications for the global economy, seriously damaging Iran’s Gulf neighbours and angering China, which gets much of its oil from the region.
For now it appears that Iran has contented itself with performative strikes against US bases in Iraq and Qatar, having given advance warning. This token retaliation was made shortly before the ceasefire was negotiated. Despite a defiant message from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran is reported to be making noises about coming to the negotiating table. A deal to restore calm to the region would be an achievement indeed.
But legal questions remain about the US decision to launch strikes. For a start, Article 2(4) of the UN charter strictly forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or “in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.
But, as Caleb Wheeler, an expert in international law from the University of Cardiff writes, it’s a rule that has rarely been either observed or enforced. He points out that the Korean War, when following a resolution of the UN security council, a number of countries went to war with North Korea to defend its southern neighbour which had been attacked in violation of article 2(4), was the high watermark of compliance with the UN on conflict.
In most other international conflicts since, the use of vetoes by one or another of the permanent members of the security council has effectively prevented the UN acting the way it was supposed to.
Now, writes Wheeler, there can be little doubt the US has violated article 2(4) by bombing Iran, particularly as Trump expressed his opinion that a regime change might be appropriate. Given that the US is one of the leading lights of the UN, Wheeler thinks you could reasonably expect a degree of condemnation from other world leaders. He worries that the absence of criticism could seriously lower the bar for aggression in the future.
And if, as remains unclear at present, Iran’s nuclear programme was not set back by years, as the US claims, but merely by months, then you could expect Tehran to redouble its efforts to acquire a bomb. The Islamic Republic will be mindful of the fact that there has been little talk of bombing North Korea in recent years, for example. Possession of a nuclear deterrent means exactly what it says.
So, conclude David Dunn and Nicholas Wheeler, these strikes which were conducted on what they feel was the false premise of defence against an “imminent” threat from a nuclear Iran, could actually have the opposite effect of encouraging Iran to rapidly develop its own bomb.
Elon Musk’s geopolitical eye in the sky
After Israel began its latest campaign of airstrikes against Iran earlier this month, the government moved to restrict internet access around the country to discourage criticism of the regime and make it difficult for protesters to organise. But in June 14 in response to a plea over social media, Elon Musk announced, appropriately on X, that he would open up access to his Starlink satellite system.
Joscha Abels, a political scientist at the University of Tübingen, recalls that Starlink became very popular in Iran during the protests that followed the killing of Mahsa Amini in 2022, and which really rocked the regime to its core. He also points to the use of Starlink by Ukraine as a vital communications tool in its defence against Russia over the past three years.
But Abels warns that what is given is also too easily switched off, as Musk did in Ukraine in 2023. At the time a senior Starlink executive warned that the tool was “never intended to be weaponized”. The concern is that such an important tool, which can make or break a regime or cripple a country’s defence, could be a risk in the hands of a private individual.
World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.
Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.