Summit of discord: What changes lie ahead for NATO after U.S. strikes?
On June 24–25, a NATO summit will take place in The Hague. Notably, Japan and South Korea—two of Washington’s key allies in the Asia-Pacific—will not be in attendance.
According to Japan’s NHK television, citing government sources, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba intends to skip the summit due to escalating tensions in the Middle East, including the recent U.S. strike on Iran. While no official statement has been made, observers link Ishiba’s reluctance to travel to The Hague with the situation in Iran—particularly the American strike that has significantly reshaped the nature of the conflict. Another reported reason for his absence is the likely non-attendance of U.S. President Donald Trump.
As for South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, officials in Seoul have cited “a heavy domestic agenda following the inauguration” and “a volatile situation in the Middle East” as reasons for not attending the summit.
Source: BBC
In recent years, Japan has consistently participated in NATO summits at the highest level. Therefore, the decision to send Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya instead of the Prime Minister has prompted considerable speculation—especially given Tokyo’s apparent reluctance to endorse the U.S. strikes on Iran. Although Japan initially supported Washington’s position, following the latest attacks, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi avoided directly answering journalists’ questions on the matter, merely acknowledging that “the situation has changed.”
However, the real reason may not lie in sympathy toward Iran. As reported by Nikkei, it is believed that Trump had planned to use the summit’s sidelines to pressure Asian NATO partners—particularly Tokyo and Seoul—into sharply increasing their defense spending. Pentagon sources previously indicated that U.S. allies in Asia should match European allies in allocating 5% of GDP to defense.
According to Gazeta.Ru, the official NATO summit agenda still includes a meeting between the Secretary General, the U.S. President, and partners from the Indo-Pacific region. It is also reported that this year’s summit format has been drastically shortened—an apparent attempt to accommodate President Trump’s preferences.
Source: britannica
Judging by available information, the upcoming summit will likely focus exclusively on the Middle East. The Russia–Ukraine war is not expected to be addressed at the heads-of-state level. On the other hand, Politico reports that the summit will not include a formal session dedicated to the Middle East either. According to the publication, President Trump’s latest statements have “injected new uncertainty into the summit, which NATO officials had hoped would follow a tightly scripted format.”
The Financial Times has also noted that NATO has reduced the summit’s working agenda to a single 2.5-hour session to prevent a potential early departure by President Trump—who previously walked out of the G7 summit in Canada. “The decision was made so Trump wouldn’t get bored,” sources told the paper.
During this single session, Secretary General Mark Rutte is expected to propose increasing NATO member states’ defense spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2030, accompanied by 1.5% investment in adjacent sectors such as infrastructure and cybersecurity. Spain and a small group of other countries have opposed the proposal. Madrid fears that such a sharp rise in defense spending would jeopardize its ability to sustain social welfare funding, FT reports.
Commenting on Spain’s resistance, Trump told reporters, “NATO needs to sort it out.”
Source: GZERO Media
It is clear that Trump’s approach has introduced significant confusion into NATO’s operations. He began criticizing alliance members during his first term, even hinting at the possibility of the United States withdrawing from NATO. Now, amid both the Russia–Ukraine and Iran–Israel conflicts, those demands have become even more aggressive.
According to BBC analysts, NATO members are increasingly uncertain whether the principle of “all for one and one for all” can still be relied upon. There is growing doubt within the alliance that it would collectively defend any member under attack. Most strikingly, even the United States—the alliance’s founding and leading member—is now occasionally questioning NATO’s very viability under Donald Trump’s leadership.
It’s worth recalling that Article 5 of the Washington Treaty has only been invoked once in NATO’s history—following the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
Last year, during his presidential campaign, Trump stated that he would not defend NATO member states that fail to meet their defense spending commitments, and would even encourage Russia to “do whatever it wants with them.” After winning the election, he told NBC News that the U.S. might consider leaving NATO altogether if the alliance no longer serves American interests. Trump insists that all NATO countries, except the United States, should spend 5% of their GDP on defense.
Source: Reuters
Whether President Trump will attend the summit in The Hague remains uncertain. On June 19, several media outlets reported that he intended to participate, even amid growing tensions in the Middle East. At that time, Trump’s presence was seen as a signal of continued U.S. commitment to NATO—at least on a symbolic level. However, those reports came before the dramatic escalation triggered by the U.S. airstrikes on Iran. Since then, the international climate has become far more volatile, and Trump himself has not issued any public confirmation of his travel plans.
Diplomatic sources suggest that the White House is currently reassessing the political and security risks of Trump’s appearance at the summit, especially in light of potential protests and growing criticism from both European and Asian allies. At the same time, many within NATO worry that his absence—or even an early departure—could be interpreted as a further weakening of U.S. engagement with the alliance at a time of multiple overlapping global crises.
In this context, the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s attendance is more than a matter of scheduling—it has become a symbol of broader doubts about the cohesion, purpose, and future of NATO itself.
By Tural Heybatov
Similar news
