NATO is an organization that was built under the shadow of the beginning of the Cold War threat. In 1949, 12 countries on both sides of the Atlantic agreed to be bound together under a military alliance that will include that “an attack on one is an attack on all”. It is also agreed that each member will contribute to the military alliance in the form of military budgets; members are required to allocate 2% of their budget to security needs.

By 2026, the alliance has grown to 32 members, mostly in Europe, with its recent members being Sweden and Finland. However, despite the sheer number of members, it must be asked whether NATO is still relevant today. NATO was founded in the shadow of the Cold War, due to the fear of the Soviet threat, nuclear fears, and the fear from the spread of communism. Today, the Cold War is gone, nuclear power is managed more or less due to regulations and there isn’t any communist threat on the horizon.

Lately, there has been a growing rift between the US and its NATO allies. It seems that, since Donald Trump’s second administration in 2025, an “America First” ideology has taken root in the White House, making the US rethink the alliance. At the heart of the controversy is a belief that almost all the NATO countries aren’t committing their budgets to the alliance, making the US think that European countries are “freeloaders”, getting American military protection without giving something in return.

In one of the most recent examples of this growing rift is Operation Epic Fury (known in Israel as Operation Roaring Lion). The operation was conducted against Iran in the background of nuclear negotiations and violent massacres in the country. At some point, President Trump’s patience ran out and attacked Iran on February 28.

What Trump unfortunately failed to realize was that almost none of its NATO allies will help. While almost every European country either supported or called for restraint (the outlier being the Spanish government), all failed to actively send materiel for the operation. Italy and Spain closed their airspace to American flights on their way to Iran; the UK at the beginning did not allocate bases for the operation (it later backed down due to American pressure); France and Germany did not agree that the operation was under “international law”.

All this makes one wonder whether this is the last century in which Europe is a major player in the international arena. Once, the continent was eager to be involved in international affairs; now it seems that it does not want to be involved so much any longer. This may eventually lead to a very apathetic attitude towards security, where Europe stopped trying to invest in security. If it does, then it might invest in immediate threats, such as Russia. Iran is not their problem since it is believed that Iran is not a threat to Europe. And, if Europe wants to cease being involved as a world player, what will happen to the NATO alliance? If there is a growing debate on the security needs of Europe, what relevance will NATO have in the future?

It must be said that like all things in the international arena, there was a prelude. In 2025, most of the rift was actually pioneered by the US. The US wanted to annex both Canada and the Danish territory of Greenland. Both are part of NATO, therefore breaching unwritten codes of relations between close allies. The damage has probably been done by 2026, and now most of the US’s strongest allies are reluctant to come to its time of need. Why would they, after the way the US has acted?

It has come to the world’s attention to refresh the role of NATO. There needs to be a revision of the relevance of such a long-standing alliance. Only then will NATO survive 21st century hurdles.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)