Speaking to the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, Amirhoushang Karimi, referred to the summit conference of the 29 NATO member states in London on the occasion of the 70th birthday of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the 30^th anniversary of the fall of the Iron Wall between the East and the West. He noted: Amid the controversy among the members and the various challenges facing the organization, it was of particular importance and thus attracted the attention of international observers.

He called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization the most extensive, the most powerful and the most influential military alliance in all of history, and said: During the Cold War bipartisan system (1949-1989) NATO was able to establish and maintain  security umbrella over the Western bloc and play an important role in balancing the global power against the powerful Eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union.

Karimi went on to say that the success of the military-security alliance at the age of the Cold War was due to the existence of two principles of “internal consensus” and “external threat”: In fact, like other coalitions and alliances, NATO’s survival and continuity require two elements of the “raison d’etre” or “existential threat” and “the common understanding of the threat and the common action against it”. To put it bluntly, what had lasted and succeeded this military-security alliance for nearly half a century and justified its “raison d’etre” was the existence of a “common threat” from the outside and a “common perception” of this threat within the alliance.

“This existential cause, common threat and shared perception of the threat, has gradually faded and weakened in the post-Cold War period, especially in the last decade,” he added.

Speaking on the role of the United States in this international alliance and Trump’s stance, the analyst noted: “Because of Donald Trump’s repeated criticisms of NATO’s inefficiency and outdated structure and his business style warnings that the member states must increase their military budget and allot 2% of their GDP to this end, many analyses are made on the destructive role of the current US government and the crisis within NATO.

Karimi emphasized: It must be noted that the internal challenges and inherent crisis of NATO go beyond the Trump era and are deeper than budget allocation. However, Donald Trump may be the first US president to openly and explicitly criticize NATO and its current status.

At the same time, he said, one cannot ignore the fact that Donald Trump, given his peculiar and controversial personality and more importantly because of his extreme populist and nationalist approaches and his famous “First America” ​​political slogan, basically the only thing he thinks is the interests of the United States and therefore does not consider multilateral engagement and cooperation whether in political matters – in the United Nations – or in trade – in multilateral agreements and in the WTO – and primarily in terms of multilateral military-security cooperation (NATO) only if it serves America’s interests and ensures its control and guidance of the NATO.

Referring to the US President’s performance at the recent NATO summit in London, he added: “At the recent summit leaders, regardless of political gestures and dramatic statements and taking group photos and issuing final declaration, the arrogant and condescending behavior of Trump and the cancellation of his press conference clearly indicated the continuation of Trump’s unilateralist, profit seeking and critical approach of NATO indicating that it is “brain dead” as described by the French president, lacking a command and control center.

Karimi added: America used to control and manage NATO militarily, but today we have an America under Trump which is based on realistic principles of power and advocates unilateralism even in security domain.

The international affairs analyst also outlined the key points in the NATO Summit final statement, saying that NATO member states strived to hold a ceremony at the highest level and with the highest degree of security at Buckingham Palace and holding unusual meetings and taking group photo with the Queen of England and issuing a final declaration that portrayed a united, powerful and integrated image of NATO. But it must be acknowledged that the summit failed to put an end to internal tensions and disagreements among members, especially between the United States and European NATO members.

Although the final statement attempted to highlight Russian “threat” and revive some type of Cold War atmosphere with Russia and to some extent China and portray a show of unity and solidarity around common goals, however the summit and its output could neither persuade international observers nor even the member states themselves.

Karimi cited the following to be among the most important internal challenges of the NATO: the continued distrust of US leadership within NATO’s multilateralism, persistent US criticism of NATO’s structural inefficiency; disagreement over existential threats to the organization, weakening of the principle of consensus and solidarity within NATO; escalation of distrust in relations between the United States and other European members of NATO, particularly France.

“These challenges, coupled with skepticism about effectiveness of Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty under the theme of collective defense, have pushed the military-security organization to the brink of an existential crisis.”

Karimi cited some of the articles of the NATO Summit’s final declaration on threats posed by Russia and China, adding that despite some alleged threats from Russia, China and the issue of global terrorism and lack of fundamental change in the structure of the current international system, NATO will continue to steer a middle course within a predictable prospect.

Karimi said Europe has been the major field for NATO’s military-security maneuvers over the past 70 years, adding that any change in the organization’s status and evolution in the US security approach would directly affect the security interests of the Green Continent. For this reason, Europe is following with great concern and sensitivity the developments of this organization, especially during the Trump presidency.

Karimi noted: “The complicated situation of NATO and its diminishing importance and credibility with American statesmen was such that it even compelled a country such as Germany to show reaction for the first time. In 2017, Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke of the need for Europe’s security self-reliance and non-dependence on the United States militarily.

Referring to French President’s harsh criticism of NATO and America’s NATO performance, the analyst added: Immanuel Macron’s explicit remarks about NATO’s “brain death” and his strong criticism of the Turkish government for attacking northern Syria to fight the Kurds; encounter with Europe over the issue of the refugees, arms purchases and military cooperation with Russia and Ankara’s security proximity to Moscow can be cited as serious signs of a split in NATO’s principle of “consensus and solidarity” and a discredit for the Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Karimi said, “Interestingly, despite the show of political unity among NATO members at the recent summit, Macron reiterated his belief in NATO’s brain death.

It must be noted that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization owes its survival and continuity over the last seven decades to the three principles of Common External Threat or the common perception of the external threat; the united US command and its acceptance by Europe; and the principle of internal consensus and solidarity.

He continued: From the early 21st century, and after the brief post-Cold War golden epoch and the events of 9/11, these three key principles and pillars of NATO have faced questions and challenges, and in the current situation we are seeing a deepening of these challenges: Challenges that have shaken the seemingly solid foundation of NATO.

Karimi outlined the first challenge to be the outbreak of differences among members regarding the perception of external threats and how to deal with these threats; The second fundamental challenge of NATO is that the organization has faced ambiguity and uncertainty on the principle of unifying command both by the US and Europe. The third challenge of the organization can be to create ambiguity and question about the principle of solidarity and consensus among the members and the optimal application of Article Five of the treaty.