NATO summit risks being overshadowed by Trump and Iran-Israel ceasefire talks

As NATO allies meet in The Hague, US military action in Iran and Trump’s attempts to secure a ceasefire risk taking the focus away from European NATO members’ key priorities.

Expert comment Published 24 June 2025 Updated 16 July 2025 3 minute READ

Dr Marion Messmer

Senior Research Fellow, International Security Programme

As the 2025 NATO summit begins in The Hague, it has been carefully designed to keep US President Donald Trump happy. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has worked hard for months, aligning European allies on the new 5 per cent of GDP defence spending goal, setting in place capability targets for the alliance, flattering the White House and travelling around Europe for public outreach. 

—

Quantum leap in defence needed says NATO chief.

Rutte’s message has been clear: Europe is delivering on defence spending and capability investment. As the summit kicks off, most allies seem to be largely in agreement on the higher spending goal, and a communique – briefer than usual reportedly due to US preference – has already been agreed. It seems that Rutte’s hard work might pay off. 

President Trump will arrive at the summit following the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which he counts as a military and foreign policy success. Depending on the outcome of the on-again, off-again ceasefire between Iran and Israel, he might also have another opportunity to boast of his dealmaking prowess. 

Trump has also taken increased defence spending among NATO members as a personal win. In The Hague, he will likely remind allies that he ‘saved’ the alliance in 2018 when he threatened to withdraw the US from NATO unless others paid more – which they then did. With Europe now agreeing to meet yet another one of his defence spending goals, he will be able to further position himself as NATO’s saviour. 

However, this might not be all positive for the US in the long run. President Trump is already looking for loopholes for the US on the new 5 per cent defence spending target. He argues that because the US has been providing security for Europe for the last several decades, it ought to be exempt. Of course, this is not how the alliance works – and if the US refuses to increase its defence spending, other reluctant states might follow suit.

It might also mean that in the longer term, Trump could fail to meet his other goal: ensuring that European NATO allies buy American-made weapons as they invest in their new capabilities. 

As the US moves closer to Russia and away from Ukraine, allies are questioning the reliability of US-made weapons systems which in some cases require US agreement before they are used. Rumours about a ‘kill switch’ in US-made equipment that allows the US to turn it off, for example in the case of a dispute, highlight serious concerns around reliability – although industry has insisted there is no such thing. 

For European states, more independence from the US will also mean buying European-made defence equipment. They will also invest more in other defence equipment partnerships, such as with Japan, South Korea or Israel. 

Iran–Israel war could distract Trump

At the summit, the priorities of European allies will look somewhat different from Trump’s priorities. There is a concern that developments in the Middle East will dominate the agenda of what is already going to be a shorter than usual meeting.  
Europeans will be looking to the US for some reassurance on a phased rather than sudden withdrawal from Europe – and recognition of their greater defence capability investments. They will want to focus on better industrial cooperation across Europe and how to ensure strong support for Ukraine at a time when the US appetite for supporting Ukraine is waning. While Ukraine is again invited to join the summit, its role has allegedly been reduced compared to previous summits to avoid angering the US.

US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and questions surrounding their legality, pose a longer-term risk. 

But there is a risk that President Trump will be distracted by the ongoing Iran–Israel ceasefire negotiations. He recently left the G7 summit early to focus on the Middle East and, given the volatile situation, there is a risk he could leave The Hague early too. 

US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and questions surrounding their legality, also pose a longer-term risk. NATO members have had different responses to the US military action. Mark Rutte clearly wanted to avoid rocking the boat ahead of the summit, refusing to comment on the legality of the strikes and highlighting that NATO has long opposed Iran developing nuclear weapons. However, individual NATO countries have been more critical. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said that, in his view, the strikes violate international law on the use of force.

There is a tendency within NATO to keep public criticism of other members to a minimum and to present a united front, as criticizing one member’s sovereign actions might undermine the alliance. However, as NATO’s biggest security concern stems from Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, there is a significant risk that US action against Iran feeds into a narrative of Western double standards when it comes to the application of international law. This could in turn reduce the effectiveness of calling out Russia for its violations of international law.

Expectations for the Hague NATO summit are high and much effort has gone into ensuring a smooth process. But focusing the summit so narrowly on keeping the US – and the US president – happy, is risky. It keeps the alliance focused on internal rather than external risks and this can backfire if priorities change. It is also not a good long-term strategy for ensuring that the alliance is ready to deal with the most severe external threats.

With a US seemingly distracted elsewhere, European NATO members must focus on progressing their key priorities at the summit. In particular, they should aim to make progress on building independent defence capabilities – if only so that they do not need to worry about managing the US relationship so carefully.