Rahman Ghahramanpour, in an interview with the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations’ website, noted that while it was initially thought Trump would not attend the recent NATO summit in the Netherlands, his presence indicated that, under current circumstances, he has postponed his decision to reduce support for NATO. He stated: “Allocating five percent of member countries’ GDP as NATO’s budget in this summit was a significant decision, showing that Trump was aware of it when he came to the meeting.”

He added: “Previously, NATO member countries, particularly some European nations, were unwilling to accept such a budget increase. However, their agreement indicates that both sides have stepped back from their positions. European countries, especially Germany, ultimately concluded that, under current conditions, they need NATO to remain strong to fulfill its missions, particularly regarding the security of all of Europe under a unified defense shield.”

Regarding the unified European defense shield, the international affairs expert said: “This is an ambitious project, but today, as Europe faces a grave threat from Russia, it has become a necessity for Europe.”

He continued: “This summit coincided with the end of the 12-day war between Iran and the Israeli regime, the escalation of conflicts in Ukraine, and the conclusion of hostilities between Pakistan and India. These developments have raised concerns in the international community that the global order is moving toward increased militarization, with the number of conflicts on the rise. Therefore, countries worldwide must enhance their defensive and military readiness. In this context, if NATO wishes to maintain its effectiveness, it must procure more weapons. NATO believes it must equip itself with modern technologies, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence to resist Russia.”

Referring to Russia’s launch of the intercontinental ballistic missile RS-26 (Rubezh) toward Ukraine, the expert stated: “The launch of this missile was a significant development because it was an upgraded version of a missile whose production and use were prohibited under arms control treaties. These missiles are both difficult to intercept and more destructive. Under these circumstances, NATO needs to acquire new technologies to maintain its power.”

Ghahramanpour emphasized: “The Netherlands summit demonstrated a relative consensus on the necessity of equipping NATO with the requirements of an era of expanding military conflicts. The acceptance of a five percent increase in military spending as a share of member countries’ GDP aligns with this. In a way, this shows that the Russian threat to Europe and NATO remains strong.”

When asked whether Europeans view NATO’s preservation solely as a means to counter Russia during the Ukraine war, he replied: “Both in Russia and Europe, the prevailing belief is that their relationship will not return to its pre-2011 state. Russia’s policies reflect this, and a strategic separation has occurred for Europeans. Therefore, NATO’s perspective on its regional security is long-term. In connection with the militarization of international politics, the use of force is making a comeback, and the taboo surrounding militarism is breaking. In other words, Europe is both arming itself against Russia and preparing for greater militarization in international politics at the national and regional levels.”

Regarding decisions by Germany, Britain, and France to enhance their national military defense capabilities, the expert noted: “Although all three countries are pursuing the expansion of their military arsenals, including nuclear-capable weapons, each has its own specific challenges and approaches that must be examined separately. For example, Germany’s approach differs from that of France, which seeks to lead the European Union. While Germany and France are EU members, Britain is not, yet it aligns with NATO and its objectives.”

He stressed: “Collective security concerns are Europe’s most pressing issue, influenced by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Trump’s policies toward Europe, his politically and militarily demeaning tone toward Europe, and the militarization of international politics. They concluded that they must take effective action to establish a unified European defense shield and strengthen NATO, a point clearly demonstrated at the NATO summit in the Netherlands.”

Regarding NATO’s stance on the U.S. intervention and aggression against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Ghahramanpour stated: “NATO and European countries’ positions on this attack must be examined separately. Europe’s stance was reflected in the German chancellor’s remarks. They are pleased with the attack because, from their perspective, the U.S. took revenge for Iran’s alignment with Russia in the Ukraine war. Europe’s desire for retribution against Iran is so strong that, if conditions allow, they may even drop threats to use the snapback mechanism. However, Europeans have also played notable roles. For instance, the French president explicitly opposed the ‘regime change in Iran’ that the Israeli regime sought to achieve through these attacks, while simultaneously assisting the regime in countering Iranian missiles and military equipment. But NATO’s position is different.”