Posted on 04/01/2026 9:02:44 AM PDT by Twotone
Secretary of State Marco Rubio questioned the value of NATO Tuesday night after European allies blocked the US military from using their bases and airspace to launch attacks on Iran.
Rubio, who recalled that as a senator he was “one of the strongest defenders” of NATO, told Fox News host Sean Hannity that membership in the transatlantic alliance would be “reexamined” after the Iran war.
“If now we have reached a point where the NATO alliance means we can’t use those bases to defend America’s interests, then NATO is a one way street,” the top US diplomat lamented.
“If NATO is simply about us having troops in Europe to defend Europe, but when we need them to allow us to use their military bases, their answer is no – then why are we in NATO?”
Rubio said the decision over whether the US remains in NATO will ultimately be made by President Trump, a longtime critic of the alliance.
“So I think there’s no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded, we are going to have to reexamine that relationship,” Rubio said.
During a cabinet meeting last week, Trump described the war against Tehran as a loyalty “test” and ripped Europeans for failing to step up.
“They weren’t there,” he said of the NATO allies. “So if there’s ever a big one … I don’t think they’re going to be there.”
Trump has also blasted European countries for failing to help the US reopen the Strait of Hormuz amid Iranian attacks on shipping vessels in the critical waterway.
The president has signaled that the responsibility for ensuring the safe passage of ships in the Strait of Hormuz may soon fall solely on Europe.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Rubio has a problem.
Its called birthright citizenship.
Oh what a conundrum.
Could you explain what you mean that he has a birthright problem He was born in Miami Florida
He has no problem. His parents weren’t illegal.
What’s the connection between birthright citizens, and revisiting the U.S. being part of NATO?
NATO is a defensive, not offensive, pact.
???
The core countries don’t really have an effective military any more.
Look at the waste of time u.n. whole you’re at it.
The issue is bigger than the Trump administration is making it seem.
The EU nations worked with the U.S. and the U.S. worked with them, regarding support for Ukraine. There was a lot of consultation with each other about what aid was going to go to Ukraine.
Trump is right, I believe, in his approach to Iran.
But, unlike Ukraine is has been from the start a “go it alone” act by the U.S. without consultation with other NATO members.
I can agree NATO members should see the matters regarding Iran and Iran’s dictatorship and hold over oil transporting through the Strait of Hormus as a matter they should take an interest in solving.
But we - Trump, apparently did not think our decisions to bomb Iran required any consultation with our NATO partners, but now we - Trump, expect their support should be automatic. It does not work that way.
If the roles were reversed - between the U.S. and our European NATO partners, on this matter of Iran at the moment, and they had gone ahead on their own without consultations with U.S., I can imagine Trump’s response to them would be similar to Spain, Italy, the U.K. and France’ response has been to us - you initiated this fight on your own, without, and it will remain without, our support.
The U.S. cannot withdraw its membership in NATO without congressional approval, but it can stop funding it. The U.S. accounts for roughly 62% to 70% of the total combined defense spending of all NATO member nations
Rubio has a problem.
Its called birthright citizenship.
Oh what a conundrum.
Born here of parent who legally migrated. He has never, to my knowledge, claimed ‘citizenship’ elsewhere. One country claims Rubio, and he claims one Country.
And planning a war in secret, without asking or consulting any other members of that “alliance”, ISN’T an example of “a one-way street”??
Team Trump *deliberately* chose to leave other members of the alleged “alliance” out of the loop, but now complains when they’re reluctant to be forced to join this surprise war?
America consulted only with Israel, that why Israel is the only one joining them
It didn’t have to be this way
I can understand their unwillingness to become involved in the Iran operation, but NOT their refusal to allow us to use their air space. For that, I’m ready to treat them as anything but allies. And consequently, we should look at our responsibility for their defense. And end it.
And why would he do that? Could it possibly be that any reasonable person would assume that someone in the EU would leak the plans to the enemy? That the EU is like the dwarves in C. S. Lewis' The Last Battle: “Well, at any rate there’s no Humbug here. We haven’t let anyone take us in. The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs.”
Some people are still hung up on this natural citizen nonsense. If Obama and Harris can run without this being a problem so can Rubio.
If we are funding their air bases, in any way what so ever, we should have usage of them as needed.
THAT is the issue at hand, not them joining. We don’t want or need their one British Destroyer and maybe 100 armed dykes with minimal training the EU Nato members can muster.
I hear France is actually doing some serious work, so kudos to them, now clear the mussie filth from Paris.
NATO should have been dissolved with the Warsaw Pact.
There is no "free world" as there once was. Certainly not in Europe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.