By Dr. Adnan Bouzan

The crisis within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is no longer confined to external challenges or the growing strategic competition with Russia and China. It has increasingly penetrated the alliance's internal structure. Since Donald Trump's return to the forefront of American decision-making, an old question has resurfaced with renewed urgency: Does the United States still regard NATO as a permanent strategic alliance, or has it become merely a negotiating instrument subject to the mood of the White House and its immediate political calculations?

Trump's policies—both during his first presidency and through his current statements and positions—have fostered an unprecedented climate of mistrust within the Atlantic Alliance. Rather than strengthening transatlantic solidarity, he sharply criticized European allies, questioned the value of collective defense commitments, and argued that Europe benefits from the American security umbrella without carrying its fair share of the burden. Consequently, the transatlantic partnership has shifted from a stable strategic relationship to one increasingly characterized by political pressure and transactional bargaining.

Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that analyses predicting a decline in NATO's influence—or even warning of fractures that could threaten its long-term cohesion—have gained momentum. Such concerns stem not only from the strength of the alliance's adversaries but also from the widening divisions within the alliance itself.

Today, Trump appears poised to add another dimension to this internal crisis by announcing his intention to attend the NATO meeting in Ankara, while openly expressing dissatisfaction with what he perceives as the insufficient support provided by several allies for American and Israeli policies during the confrontation with Iran. His participation, therefore, appears less an effort to restore transatlantic unity than an attempt to reshuffle the political landscape and impose new dynamics within the alliance.

It is difficult to believe that this meeting will be capable of restoring the lost cohesion among NATO members. The disagreements are no longer limited to burden-sharing or defense spending; they now touch upon the very nature of American leadership within the alliance, the future of European security, and the extent of Europe's strategic autonomy from Washington.

Yet, what should concern the peoples of the Middle East is not NATO's future in itself, but the nature of the understandings and political arrangements that may emerge from such meetings. History has repeatedly shown that whenever divisions deepen within major alliances, the tendency to pursue bilateral deals and political bargains aimed at redistributing influence and compensating for strategic losses becomes stronger. The Middle East has often paid the price for such arrangements, which have frequently been concluded at the expense of its peoples rather than its competing powers.

Trump's repeated boasts about his strong personal relationships with world leaders and his confidence in securing "the best deal" should not obscure the more important question: What price might the peoples of the region ultimately pay for any new political understandings? History teaches us that the reconfiguration of international alliances is often accompanied by a redrawing of regional balances of power, opening the door to agreements that transcend the will and interests of the peoples most directly affected.

For this reason, the priority should not be to await the outcomes of NATO meetings or to gamble on shifts in Washington's political mood. Rather, regional actors should adopt prudent political and strategic measures to anticipate the consequences of any new understandings that could trigger another wave of regional bargains or reproduce traditional spheres of influence through new mechanisms. The Middle East needs neither additional international trade-offs nor renewed geopolitical bargains. Instead, it requires a regional order founded on respect for the will of its peoples, the protection of their right to development and stability, and their ability to determine their own future free from the calculations of major powers.

What is unfolding within NATO today should not be viewed merely as an internal Western affair. Its repercussions extend far beyond Europe and are likely to reach the Middle East with considerable speed. A sound political reading therefore requires attention not only to the disputes among allies but also to the broader consequences these disputes may have for the region's future. Not every rapprochement between major powers necessarily leads to peace; indeed, many international settlements have ultimately become the starting point for even more complex crises.

Political wisdom lies in anticipating events before they unfold, rather than merely interpreting them after they have become an established reality.

Add comment