U.S. President Donald Trump recently took to the podium to air a familiar grievance, lambasting America’s closest allies including NATO members, Japan, South Korea and Australia for failing to provide concrete military support to the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.

To the White House, this reluctance is a betrayal, a sign of free-riding nations unwilling to shoulder the burden of global security. But to understand the hesitation in Tokyo, Ottawa, Berlin, Canberra and Seoul, one must look past the rhetoric and examine the reality of this conflict.

The allies are not abandoning the U.S.; they are recoiling from a war that lacks a defined strategy, achievable objectives, consistent messaging and a commitment to post-conflict diplomacy. In short, they are being asked to bleed for a war of choice without a clear rationale.

History shows that American allies are more than willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Washington when the mission is clear. Compare the current fractured landscape with the coalition U.S. President George H.W. Bush assembled for the First Gulf War (1990-1991). That effort was a masterclass in diplomacy, grounded in international law, with a singular, achievable objective: to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Similarly, the coalition forged after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S. was bound by the undeniable necessity of self-defense and a shared moral outrage. More recently, in 2022 the Biden administration successfully rallied a global coalition to arm and fund Ukraine against Russia’s invasion anchored by a clear narrative of defending sovereign borders against unprovoked aggression.

What is different today? In each of those historical examples, the U.S. engaged in consultation, established clear red lines and articulated what victory looked like. The current U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran offers none of these assurances. As Richard K. Betts and Stephen Biddle argue in their recent Foreign Affairs article, “The Price of Strategic Incoherence in Iran,” a legitimate war must be accompanied by a strategy that can achieve its purpose at an acceptable price. They rightly point out that the administration’s fallback option of “mowing the lawn” by........

© The Japan Times