A Foolish NATO Was a Big Loser in the Iran War

American Greatness ^ | 2 Apr, 2026 | Victor Davis Hanson

[MtnClimber]

NATO endures on American backing while many allies demand U.S. action abroad but withhold it when asked, exposing a widening gap between rhetoric and responsibility.

NATO members are not legally required to join any member’s military operations that are not formally sanctioned by the alliance or not aimed at protecting the homelands of the membership.

But they often do just that.

Some NATO members joined the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq on the theory that, in the post-9/11 environment, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were dangers to all Western security.

They followed the precedent set by America’s 1999 intervention in the distant Balkans, leading a three-month NATO campaign to dismantle Slobodan Milošević’s often bloody ambitions of a Greater Serbia. The U.S. also joined the 2011 U.N.-approved, and French- and British-inspired, NATO “coalition of the willing” bombing campaign in Libya.

That effort proved a seven-month misadventure—especially since the targeted Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi had given up his nuclear weapons program and was desperately trying to cut a deal with the West.

When NATO members in the past have operated unilaterally to defend their own national interests, they have often called on the U.S., as NATO’s strongest member, for overt help.

For nearly 40 years, the U.S. had offered logistical, intelligence, reconnaissance, refueling, and diplomatic support to the French in their unilateral and postcolonial efforts to protect Chad from Libya and, later, Islamists.

During the 1982 Falklands War, a solitary Britain faced enormous logistical challenges in steaming halfway around the world to eject Argentina from its windswept and sparse islands.

U.S. aid was critical to the effort.

So America stepped up to help with intelligence, reconnaissance, the supply of some two million gallons of much-needed gasoline, and crucial restocking of Britain’s depleted Tomahawk missiles.

---

TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: leftism; nato

[MtnClimber]

If the US leaves then they can add “S” for socialists in their new acronym.

[MtnClimber]

VDH ping

[metmom]

GOOD!

I’m tired of the US providing for all those ingrates.

[FreedBird]

Fake NATO and Fake friendships are everywhere.

[FreedBird]

Backstabbers present in NATO. Just like backstabbers in the Democrat Party!

[Alberta's Child]

The bigger issue here is that NATO hasn’t served any real purpose since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact governments.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

Reduce our payments to NATO to NO MORE than 2% of GDP. Use the savings to buy or sponsor new weapon development.

[ClearCase_guy]

Spain contributes 1.28% of GDP to NATO. I say the US should go for 1.25%. Or maybe nothing at all.

[Skwor]

Stop all funding of NATO and say we are going to use it for healthcare, LOL. Watch Europe tie themselves in knots over trying to condemn us.

But for real just leave NATO all together and put it towards fixing the budget.

NATO is a taker only it has become a drag; NATO is a paper tiger and outside of US forces they have no competent force, no different than being on our own which we already are.

[Aevery_Freeman]

We were warned of “Entangling Alliances”.

Nobodies fault but our own!

[OldHarbor]

Democrat presidents used NATO as their own personal army.

Democratic U.S. presidents have historically utilized NATO to provide multilateral legitimacy and burden-sharing for military actions, particularly when responding to humanitarian crises or regional instability in Europe and North Africa. Key interventions include President Bill Clinton's air campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo, and President Barack Obama's intervention in Libya.

Bill Clinton Administration (1993–2001)

Bosnia (1995): Following two years of minimal intervention, the Clinton administration pushed NATO to conduct bombing campaigns against Bosnian Serb positions, bringing parties to the bargaining table and establishing the Dayton Peace Accords, which were enforced by a NATO-led peacekeeping force.

Kosovo (1999): President Clinton initiated a 78-day bombing campaign (Operation Allied Force) against Yugoslavia to end "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo. This was done through NATO without formal United Nations Security Council approval due to potential vetoes from Russia/China.

Barack Obama Administration (2009–2017)

Libya (2011): The Obama administration utilized NATO to spearhead military intervention against Muammar Gaddafi's forces. While the U.S. initially conducted the majority of aerial refueling and surveillance (75% of sorties), leadership was officially transferred to NATO.

European Deterrence (2014): In response to Russia's annexation of Crimea, the Obama administration established the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) and supported Operation Atlantic Resolve, bolstering NATO's eastern flank with rotational forces

Joe Biden Administration (2021–2025)

Ukraine Response (2022–2024): The Biden administration leveraged NATO to coordinate military aid, logistical support, and sanctions against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, calling NATO the "greatest military alliance in the history of the world".

Common Trends

Burden Sharing: Democratic presidents have often argued that NATO, rather than acting unilaterally, magnifies U.S. military capabilities, with European allies taking on significant roles.

Humanitarian Focus: Interventions in the Balkans and Libya were characterized as humanitarian missions, aiming to halt atrocities.

War Powers Controversy: Actions under Clinton and Obama sometimes occurred without express congressional approval, with officials arguing that NATO-led missions or "limited" involvement meant authorization was not required.

[redfreedom]

Your comment is arguable. I for one am not in favor of the Ukrainian war and initially felt that Russia had ample reason to take over portions of Ukraine that identified more with the Russian culture and language.

And it is possible that once the USSR failed that we could have treated them better and attempted to make them allies rather than enemies. After all, once we defeated Japan and Germany they are now allies with great economies.

What’s changed is the threat of global war with Iran, China and Russia being the new evil axis. With such allies, especially China, this makes Russia a greater threat to Eastern Europe and probably all of Europe. In this respect, NATO does have a purpose.

I now think it’s best to keep the Russians occupied in Ukraine. Any peace deal would enable the Ruskies to replenish their military assets and be a greater threat to all of Europe and possibly the USA.

[healy61]

Trump made it clear that Americans aren’t going to foot the bill for NATO, or worse that worthless UN. All of the countries know how much of the GDP is to be paid yearly. Only America was doing it. The “Kick Me” sign is off the American taxpayer’s backs.

[escapefromboston]

IT would require congress to get out of NATO which will never happen. We should just stop wasting money on it and say “well if you get invaded we will help out” since thats really never going to happen. I mean besides being invaded by 3rd muslim hordes but thats what those governments want anyways.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Time for America to dump the third worlders at NATO and the UN. Those people all are worthless.

[DIRTYSECRET]

**The bigger issue here is that NATO hasn’t served any real purpose since the collapse of the Soviet Union.**
Poland and the Baltics may disagree.

** I for one am not in favor of the Ukrainian war and initially felt that Russia had ample reason to take over portions of Ukraine that identified more with the Russian culture and language.**
Something tells me those people would be better off with the EU.

**Reduce our payments to NATO to NO MORE than 2% of GDP. Use the savings to buy or sponsor new weapon development.**
We get 2 weeks vacation per year. They get a month. Are we paying for that?

**I now think it’s best to keep the Russians occupied in Ukraine. Any peace deal would enable the Ruskies to replenish their military assets and be a greater threat to all of Europe and possibly the USA.**
It took 2 and a half years between Dec. 7 and Normandy to invade. In the meantime we all let Stalin. and the Nazis carve each other up. They might need those weapons against the Chicoms.

**We were warned of “Entangling Alliances”.**
Don’t forget the military industrial complex. Might be a good thing to have when you look at how effective our weapons are. We’ll always have to stay on top. Think of the Nazis that worked for us in the Cold War.

[faithhopecharity]

UK, France , Spain.. we will never ever support their defense again. Let the backstabbers GTH as long as their current regimes are in power. Thrn we can look and see

[thegagline]

In every single action cited in this piece where NATO members cooperated, there was one essential difference from the current conflict: the common courtesy of consulting allies before initiating hostilities.

[Alberta's Child]

I think it goes beyond that. I have long understood that NATO involvement in these stupid military campaigns has been primarily a part of selling the campaigns in the domestic political environments of the various nations involved (especially the U.S.). This is something I've noticed since the first Bush administration. When the U.S. wants to embark on a military adventure in some Third World sh!t-hole for its own reasons, the pattern seems pretty consistent:

1. Try to get the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution against Country X, and then sell the military action as a necessary mechanism to enforce it. "This isn't something the U.S. wants to do, but we have obligations under our United Nations commitment to do it."

2. If the U.N. Security Council doesn't go along with this (due to a veto by Russia or China, for example), then turn it into a NATO problem. "This isn't something the U.S. wants to do, but we have obligations to our NATO partners that require us to get involved."

3. If NATO has no interest, then we just do it ourselves with anyone who wants to be involved (or nobody at all).

We have now reached the comical, and pathetic next step after #3 ...

4. Pretend NATO has some kind of vested interest in the military campaign after the fact, and whine about them publicly for failing to get involved in a military campaign we excluded them from in the first place.