In November 2024, Mark Rutte, the new Secretary General of NATO, congratulated U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, expressing his eagerness to work with him again to strengthen peace through power within the Alliance. However, the congratulatory message also included references to global challenges facing NATO countries, such as Russia, terrorism, competition with China, and partnerships among Western rivals.

Despite NATO’s critical role as a security umbrella for Western nations since its founding in 1949, and its involvement in numerous crises deemed threats to member nations’ national security, the U.S.-NATO relationship has experienced ups and downs. During Trump’s first term, he alternated between demanding NATO members adhere to the 2% GDP defense spending guideline and calling for a greater NATO role in the Middle East—a stance that sparked debates about the timing and nature of such a role. Notably, on December 8, 2024, Trump threatened to withdraw from NATO unless allies “paid their dues.” This echoed his rhetoric from his first election campaign, followed by affirmations of strategic partnerships in his State of the Union address upon assuming office.

Before delving into the nuances of U.S.-NATO relations, three key points must be emphasized. First, the U.S. bears the lion’s share of NATO’s defense expenses, which grants it considerable influence over NATO policies. While consensus is the decision-making rule in NATO, U.S. sway is significant. Second, although NATO interventions outside its territory require consensus, a UN mandate to ensure legitimacy, and requests from involved parties, the U.S. and major NATO powers have collaborated on various military operations. These include the Western naval coalition during the Iran-Iraq War, the liberation of Kuwait, and NATO’s logistical support in the anti-ISIS coalition in 2017. Lastly, NATO’s first intervention as an organization occurred during the Libyan crisis in 2011, leveraging U.S. military efforts as a precursor.

In my view, U.S.-NATO relations transcend financial contributions. The United States continues to rely on NATO, especially amidst the ongoing Ukraine war. While Trump pledged to end the conflict, questions about concessions remain. NATO, or more specifically its European members, equally need the U.S. due to two realities: the security vulnerabilities highlighted by the Ukraine war, where the U.S. provided over $60 billion to Ukraine between 2022 and 2024, and the lack of a viable European alternative to NATO as a security framework.

What sparks debate is how the dynamics between the U.S. and NATO under Trump’s upcoming term will affect the Middle East. Trump’s initial statements suggest limited U.S. engagement in the region’s chronic crises, necessitating a larger NATO role in Middle Eastern issues for three reasons:

1. Power vacuums left by reduced U.S. and NATO presence allow rivals to establish partnerships in these areas, challenging Western interests. For example, as NATO ended its anti-piracy mission off Somalia (2008–2016), China and India sent naval forces to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, bypassing the U.S.-led Prosperity Alliance in December 2023.
2. NATO’s regional partnerships—the Mediterranean Dialogue (1994) and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (2004)—offer frameworks for broader engagement.
3. NATO’s institutional and military capacities uniquely position it to address regional security concerns.

Such considerations emphasize the strategic importance of NATO’s involvement in the Middle East as U.S. policy evolves.

Note: This article has been automatically translated, the full article is available in Arabic.

Source: Akhbar Al Khaleej