There is a piece of twisted steel outside NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. It came from the 107th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. It sits on a pedestal. In front of it, a plaque. The inscription commemorates the only time in NATO’s seventy-six-year history that Article 5 — the mutual defense clause, the heart of the alliance, the promise that an attack on one is an attack on all — has ever been invoked. September 12, 2001. The day after the United States was attacked. NATO didn’t wait to be asked. The Secretary General called an emergency session, and within twenty-four hours, all eighteen member nations said: we’re with you. More than a thousand NATO soldiers eventually died in Afghanistan fighting alongside Americans in the years that followed. Seven AWACS radar aircraft, crewed by 830 service members from thirteen countries, flew over 360 sorties patrolling American skies in the months after the attacks. A piece of the building where nearly 3,000 Americans died sits outside NATO’s front door. Not as a trophy. As a reminder.
Donald Trump called NATO “COWARDS” on Friday.
The post on Truth Social came three weeks into a war Barron von BoneSpurs started without consulting a single NATO ally, without warning, without a coalition, without a plan, and without asking Congress. He launched strikes on February 28, and then, when the Strait of Hormuz closed and oil hit $112 a barrel and the consequences arrived faster than the exit strategy, he turned to the alliance he has spent a decade demeaning and demanded they send warships to clean it up. Most of them said no. Macron told an EU summit in Brussels: "I have not heard anyone here express a willingness to enter this conflict — quite the opposite." Trump’s response was to call them cowards and paper tigers and to say NATO is a one-way street. His exact words: "Without the U.S.A., NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! They didn’t want to join the fight to stop a Nuclear Powered Iran."
Before we get to why every ally said no — and why they were right to — let’s be precise about what NATO actually is, because Trump has spent so long misrepresenting it that the misrepresentation has become the accepted frame.
NATO is a defensive alliance. That is not an interpretation. That is the text. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one member shall be considered an attack against all, and that each member will take such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The operative word is defensive. The operative trigger is an armed attack against a member. NATO is not a military taxi service. It is not a coalition of the willing available on demand for wars of choice. It is not a mechanism by which one member can launch an unprovoked offensive war against a third country and then summon the others to manage the fallout. It has never been that. It was never designed to be that. The founding treaty is unambiguous.
Article 5 has been invoked exactly once in seventy-six years. For the United States. After 9/11. When America was attacked on its own soil by a foreign terrorist organization and nearly 3,000 people died. NATO didn’t invoke it because the US asked them to — they invoked it on their own initiative, before the US had formally requested anything, because they understood that’s what the alliance exists to do. And the United States, it should be noted, was somewhat standoffish about the whole thing — wary of what it called “war by committee” after the messy NATO experience in Kosovo, the US largely declined to formally channel the Article 5 response through NATO structures and pursued Operation Enduring Freedom largely on its own bilateral terms. The allies sent forces anyway. They sent them for years. They buried their own soldiers in Afghan soil for an American war. More than a thousand of them.
That is what NATO has done for the United States. The specific, documented thing. Now here is what the United States is asking NATO to do right now: join a war that the US started unilaterally, against a country that has not attacked any NATO member, without a UN Security Council authorization, without a congressional authorization, without coalition consultation, without defined objectives, without an exit strategy, and against the explicit advice of the international legal community, which has said the strikes violated the UN Charter’s prohibition on offensive military force. Trump is not asking NATO to defend a member. He is asking NATO to ratify and reinforce an offensive war of choice that the alliance’s own charter was specifically designed to prevent members from dragging each other into.
The allies understand this. Journalist Anne Applebaum, writing in The Atlantic, put it plainly: "What you’re hearing from America’s European allies isn’t cowardice. It’s calculation. Over the past year, they’ve heard Trump insult, humiliate, and hurt them. They’ve seen him treat the NATO alliance like a club whose members owe him personal loyalty rather than a treaty organization built on shared law and mutual defense. They are not going to send their soldiers to die in a war that violates international law, that was launched without their input, and that serves no defined strategic interest they were consulted about." That’s not cowardice. That’s exactly the kind of sober, democratically accountable decision-making that the alliance was built to protect.
The UK is the exception, and even that exception comes with asterisks. Prime Minister Keir Starmer authorized the use of British bases — specifically Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean — for US strikes on Iranian missile sites. Iran’s foreign minister responded that Starmer was "putting British lives in danger." Starmer’s own Labour backbenchers have been in open revolt, with dozens of MPs demanding a parliamentary vote on British involvement. The UK managed to get several Western nations to sign a political statement expressing readiness to contribute to “appropriate efforts” — language so carefully drained of commitment that it commits to nothing. Trump called it insufficient. He wanted warships. He got a press release.
Estonia, to its credit, reportedly told Washington four times it was ready to help with Hormuz. Estonia has a population of 1.4 million people and a navy consisting of minehunters and patrol boats. Estonia said yes. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands — the nations whose combined military weight actually matters in the Strait of Hormuz — said no. Trump called them all cowards equally, which tells you something about the quality of the analysis behind the ask.
Trump also said, in the same Truth Social post, that the war was militarily won and that there was now "very little danger" for any nation that wanted to help reopen the strait — and then, in the same breath, demanded they send warships into it. If it’s won and there’s very little danger, why do you need allied warships? If you need allied warships, in what sense is it won and what exactly is the danger level? The answer, as with so much of this war, is that the words are not required to be consistent with each other. They are required only to produce the desired emotional effect in the moment they are posted.
The NATO withdrawal from Iraq happened this week too, almost unnoticed beneath the noise of the cowards post. NATO’s advisory mission in Iraq — a non-combat operation launched in 2018 to help Iraq build effective security institutions — was evacuated after Iranian attacks on allied bases in northern Iraq. British, French, and Italian personnel were among those at those bases. The alliance’s supreme allied commander Europe, General Alexus Grynkewich, confirmed the withdrawal in a statement, thanking the “dedicated men and women of NATO Mission Iraq” for their professionalism. Professionalism that included, apparently, fleeing bases that were being struck because a war they weren’t consulted about put them in the crosshairs. The mission will now run from NATO headquarters in Naples. The partners Trump called cowards for not joining his war just lost a decade-long stabilization mission in Iraq because of it.
Trump has now escalated his NATO threats beyond the cowards post. He told reporters he sees the alliance as a "one-way street — we will protect them, but they will do nothing for us." He has suggested the Iran war has been a test of NATO solidarity, that the alliance failed it, and that the US will remember. His advisers, when asked about NATO withdrawal, have stopped giving flat denials. The phrase now in circulation is that Trump "retains all options."
Here is the thing about NATO that Trump has never understood, or has understood and chosen to weaponize anyway: the alliance does not primarily benefit its members by showing up to wars. It benefits its members by making wars less likely to start. Seventy-six years of no war between major European powers. Seventy-six years of a security architecture stable enough that Western economies could grow, trade could expand, and democracy could consolidate across a continent that spent the first half of the twentieth century tearing itself to pieces. That’s what NATO built. Not a military taxi. A deterrence structure so credible that the scenarios it exists to prevent have not occurred.
If the United States withdraws from NATO, or degrades its commitment so severely that Article 5 becomes unenforceable, the deterrence structure collapses. Not gradually. Immediately. Russia, which has already invaded two sovereign European nations in the past twelve years, does the math. China, watching from the Pacific, does the math. Every authoritarian government on earth that has been calculating the cost of aggression against a NATO-aligned state adjusts its calculation the moment the American commitment becomes negotiable.
And the United States loses the thing it has spent seventy-six years building: the credibility of its guarantees. Not just in Europe. Everywhere. Every mutual defense treaty, every security partnership, every bilateral commitment the US has made to any country in the world is downstream of the credibility of Article 5. If Article 5 is conditional — if it can be suspended by a Truth Social post because the allies didn’t show up for a war they weren’t consulted about — then every American security guarantee is conditional. Taiwan knows this. South Korea knows this. Japan knows this. They are all watching what happens to NATO right now and drawing their own conclusions about what American commitments are worth.
The piece of steel from the 107th floor of the North Tower is still sitting outside NATO headquarters in Brussels. The plaque is still there. The inscription still reads the same.
The alliance invoked Article 5 once. For us. When we were attacked.
We are not being asked to remember that right now. We are being asked to call them cowards for not doing something it was never their obligation to do.
**Next in the Obliterated series: Congress had the power to stop this war before it started. It still has the power to end it. It has done neither. Eight votes. Zero results. Here’s the accounting. (Part Six: The Abdication)
Add comment
Comments