The head of North Atlantic Treaty Organization has said Donald Trump expressed clear frustration over the refusal of US allies to take part in the recent conflict with Iran, following a private meeting in Washington.

Get today's headlines by email

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told CNN that the US president had voiced dissatisfaction with the alliance’s response to the crisis but described their discussion as open and direct.

“He clearly told me what he thought of what happened over the last couple of weeks,” Rutte said. “It is a nuanced picture.”

The meeting took place shortly after the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire that includes reopening the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

Trump criticises NATO allies

Before meeting Rutte, Trump had sharply criticised the military alliance, calling it a “paper tiger” and questioning its reliability after member states declined to support Washington’s military actions in the Iran conflict.

After the talks, Trump repeated his criticism in a message posted on Truth Social.

“NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN. REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!” he wrote.

Earlier in the week, Trump had also linked his frustration with the alliance to opposition among NATO members to his proposal for the United States to take control of Greenland.

Rutte declined to say whether Trump had raised the possibility of withdrawing the United States from NATO during their meeting, but said their conversation had been “very frank, very open” between “two good friends”.

Tensions over Iran conflict

The meeting occurred at a sensitive moment, less than a day after the ceasefire agreement between Washington and Tehran was announced.

The temporary truce followed rising tensions over access through the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route for global oil supplies. Trump had previously warned Iran that failure to ensure safe passage through the waterway by a deadline set by Washington could lead to severe consequences, including threats to Iranian infrastructure.

The closure of the strait during the conflict pushed global oil prices higher and increased pressure for international intervention to secure the passage.

Trump had argued that reopening the route should not be solely the responsibility of the United States, urging countries that rely heavily on energy shipments through the strait to take a more active role.

“Go to the strait and just take it,” Trump said last week.

Debate over NATO’s future role

The tensions have renewed debate about the United States’ commitment to NATO, a 32-member military alliance built around collective defence.

Under the organisation’s core principle, an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. The clause has been invoked only once, following the September 11 attacks in 2001, when NATO allies supported the United States.

Despite that history, Trump has long criticised the alliance and has previously suggested the United States could withdraw. However, US lawmakers passed legislation in 2023 requiring congressional approval before any president can formally leave NATO.

Earlier on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that the issue could come up in discussions between Trump and Rutte.

“I think it’s something the president will be discussing in a couple of hours with Secretary General Rutte,” she said.

Political reactions in Washington

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell defended the alliance, noting that NATO partners had supported the United States in past conflicts.

“Following the September 11 attacks, Nato allies sent their young servicemembers to fight and die alongside America’s own in Afghanistan and Iraq,” he said in a statement.

McConnell urged the administration to maintain clear and consistent support for the alliance, warning that disputes with partners could undermine efforts to counter global adversaries.

Separately, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met Rutte at the US State Department earlier in the day. According to a department statement, the discussions covered the Iran conflict, diplomatic efforts related to the war in Ukraine, and cooperation with NATO allies.

The alliance has faced growing strain over the past year, including disagreements about support for Ukraine and Trump’s suggestion that the United States could seek control of Greenland, a territory belonging to Denmark.

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to travel to Gulf states to support diplomatic efforts surrounding the ceasefire and plans for security in the Strait of Hormuz.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 10 April 2026

View full article

This just shows that NATO is smarter then America and has always been. Why should NATO enter a war that was orchestrated, manipulated and instigated by israel ?

Trump is such a total MORON.

He starts a doomed war of choice with Iran who he idiotically thinks is similar to Venezuela without consulting NATO allies OR the U.S. congress.

In other words, in effect, acting like a TOTAL DICTATOR.

He's "surprised" that Iran has cards.

He's "surprised" that Iran now controls the Staits of Hormuz.

Now that he has lost the war to Iran he's humiliated and needs someone to blame. NATO anyone?

Article 25 please!

Trump’s complaint that “NATO wasn’t there when we needed them” overlooks a basic reality:

NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive expeditionary force.

The Iran conflict was initiated by the US and Israel on their own terms, without NATO consultation and outside the scope of collective defence.

Several reports note that NATO members were never asked to approve the war and had advised against escalation in the first place.

If Washington and Tel Aviv chose to act unilaterally, it’s hardly surprising that other NATO members didn’t feel obliged to jump in afterward. Rutte himself pointed out that many

European countries still provided basing, logistics, and overflight support, even though the war wasn’t a NATO mission.

So blaming NATO for “not being there” feels misplaced. The alliance wasn’t attacked, Article 5 wasn’t triggered, and the conflict wasn’t a collective decision.

If anything, this episode reinforces why NATO stays focused on defence rather than being dragged into wars its members warned against.

Nato has acted within the framework of Article 5 which clearly stipulate that an armed attack against all will mandate members to take action. US was not attacked. US launched an unprovoked war. Nato has the legal and morale high ground not to be part of this unprovoked war. All the past goodwill between US and Nato has been destroyed by Trump's idiosyncrasies.

The only person to ever say Trump was a brainiac was the grifter himself. The loser is a total waste of space.

For heavens sake , somebody tell Trump what the NA in NATO stands for. The middle east is nowhere near the north atlantic.

If you start a war without consulting anyone , repeatedly say you don't need help with it , disrespect the armed forces of your allies etc etc then disappointment is sure to follow. Perhaps he should have busied himself with his Board of Peace instead of going to war.

3 hours ago, trucking said:

For heavens sake , somebody tell Trump what the NA in NATO stands for. The middle east is nowhere near the north atlantic.

If you start a war without consulting anyone , repeatedly say you don't need help with it , disrespect the armed forces of your allies etc etc then disappointment is sure to follow. Perhaps he should have busied himself with his Board of Peace instead of going to war.

Additionally, even if Iran attacked first in Arabia, NATO doesn't automatically come into it. The treaty has territorial limitations. Its retricted to Europe, North America, Turkey and the North Atlantic above the Tropic of Cancer (not anywhere above the Tropic of Cancer).

When British forces were attacked by Argentinian forces and British territory seized in 1982, NATO Collective Self Defence was not invoked, because the Falklands were outside of the NATO area of control. The territorial clause was something inserted by the YS in the 1951 treaty because it did not want NATO to become involved in the UK and France's post-colonial wars. Such a clause also means that Pearl Harbor is out of automatic scope.

In 1956, Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal, a canal built by and paid for by Europe. Both France and Britain felt this harmed Western (NATO) interests; the canal was coming under the control of a Junta that was already pivoting to Soviet and Communist influence. At the very least, they expected the US to at least not actively oppose retaking of the Suez by a combined Anglo-French-Israeli force. But, despite the NATO treaty, the US actively sided with the Egyptians against their allies,contributing to about 1200 allied troops being killed or injured. The resulting debacle cemented France's doubts about the alliance (that the US will only help Europe if it was in the interests of the US to do so, ie. the US had sat by and let France be overrun by the Nazis, because it was not in the interests of the United States at that time.

The question is whether the UK or Turkey should have invoked Article 4 when their bases were attacked in Cyprus and Turkey, and also why didn't the US invoke Article 4 when their Turkish base was attacked?

2 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

The question is whether the UK or Turkey should have invoked Article 4 when their bases were attacked in Cyprus and Turkey

Because they wisely don't want nato involved.

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Because they wisely don't want nato involved.

Yet when Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft, they invoked Article 4.

Article 4 results in a meeting of the alliance, which would have given the US an opportunity to disclose the intel it had on the Iranian nuclear programme which apparently differed so much from the British intel. The venue would have allowed the US to build more of a case.

Just stop funding them.

NATO is a waste of space. Jobs for the boys. When you need them they bottle it.

With friends like them who needs enemies.

Spend the cash domestically instead.

13 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Just stop funding them.

NATO is a waste of space. Jobs for the boys. When you need them they bottle it.

With friends like them who needs enemies.

Spend the cash domestically instead.

Typical Yank MAGA gobbledygook!! no idea what he is talking about !!

8 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

Typical Yank MAGA gobbledygook!! no idea what he is talking about !!

Yank? 😃

That's not a very polite way to refer to our special friends across the pond.

Do you call Italians Wops and the French frogs as well ?

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

special friends across the pond.

Special friends my arse, it's always been transactional if shrouded in diplomatic nicety. Trump's just done away with any nicety, and I doubt it will ever go back the way it was thankfully. As for Rutte, he's just an appaling brown nose.

6 minutes ago, Stocky said:

Special friends my arse, it's always been transactional if shrouded in diplomatic nicety. Trump's just done away with any nicety, and I doubt it will ever go back the way it was thankfully.

Just to add to your post, I spent some money on what you call a surfy last night and called every one I know from all over the world, Germany, Thailand and many other ones to many to list. I ask just a simple question ( Do you like the current US government?) I did not even mention Trump's name, and guess what? Everybody opposed how the American government handled the Iran conflict. This cost me a lot of money since I used my phone to tell all you Magas to think again before you start WW3.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Yank? 😃

That's not a very polite way to refer to our special friends across the pond.

Do you call Italians Wops and the French frogs as well ?

Rather thinking this is not polite do your research limey !!!