At a time of mounting tensions within the transatlantic relationship, statements by Donald Trump questioning NATO’s future have reignited debate over Europe’s security architecture.
Speaking to Decode39, Ambassador Gabriele Checchia—former Italian ambassador to NATO and to Lebanon, and a senior diplomatic advisor—offers a measured assessment of Washington’s posture, the implications for Europe, and the broader geopolitical context shaped by the crisis with Iran.
Q: President Trump is “seriously considering withdrawing from NATO.” First, is this realistic? Second, what would be the consequences?
A: When Trump speaks, it is always wise to exercise caution before taking his words at face value. As one commentator once noted, President Trump should not be taken literally—his statements require a certain adjustment.
- I believe that this declaration, which appears extreme and opens up troubling scenarios, should be taken cum grano salis. It does not necessarily reflect his actual intentions.
- The same applies to the Greenland issue: only a few months ago, some were already predicting a military confrontation between the United States, NATO, and European allies. Today, the discussion—though still delicate—has shifted onto a more diplomatic track.
Q: Could there be another explanation?
A: I would not rule out that such statements are also intended to extract further concessions from European allies, particularly regarding their level of engagement in geopolitical theaters of interest to the United States. This comes ahead of key NATO meetings, including the Foreign Ministers’ meeting in May and the summit in Turkey in July.
- That said, an actual U.S. withdrawal from NATO would raise a range of issues, including complex legal questions within the United States itself.
Q: Politically, what would it mean for Europe?
A: It would require a strong acceleration toward autonomous defense capabilities. Several initiatives have already been launched at the EU level, but we remain far from genuine strategic autonomy.
- Such a scenario could act as a wake-up call—“Hannibal at the gates,” so to speak. Europe has historically performed best in moments of crisis, and this could be another such moment.
Q: Beyond Trump’s rhetoric, what broader scenarios should we consider for NATO and the EU?
A: We must recognize that, beyond Trump, there is a longstanding frustration in the United States regarding what is perceived as insufficient European commitment to its own security. This is not new—it dates back to the Obama and Biden administrations.
- That said, Europe is now doing more, including through initiatives such as SAFE, the €150 billion loan facility for joint defense industrial projects.
Q: Will that be enough?
A: There is still room—and necessity—for further effort. NATO has faced serious crises before, including the Suez Crisis, when the United States clashed sharply with France, the UK, and Israel, even triggering financial pressure on the British pound.
- We should also recall the divisions over the Iraq War and France’s withdrawal from NATO’s integrated military command in 1966. The Alliance has survived severe tensions before.
Q: So this is not unprecedented?
A: Exactly. However, with Trump, everything is amplified—his language, the broader international context, and the existence of a significant domestic constituency skeptical of permanent alliances.
- This tendency toward isolationism is not new. It dates back at least to George Washington’s farewell address, in which he warned against permanent alliances. Still, Trump’s words should not be underestimated.
Q: Are these statements a provocation, a threat, or something likely to materialize?
A: In any case, Europe must do more. If these statements remain rhetorical, they still serve as pressure. If they translate into action, then Europe will need to accelerate significantly on defense integration.
- We are already seeing some rebalancing within NATO command structures, with increasing European responsibilities. This trend will likely continue.
Q: There are also domestic political dynamics at play, correct?
A: Yes. There are also complex legal constraints. The U.S. Constitution does not clearly define how to exit international treaties. Moreover, in 2023, Congress passed provisions within the National Defense Authorization Act requiring congressional approval—particularly from the Senate—for any withdrawal from NATO.
- This could lead to a significant institutional clash, potentially reaching the Supreme Court. Additionally, within the Republican Party itself, many figures remain committed to NATO, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Q: The Iran crisis has reshaped the geopolitical landscape. How do you assess Italy’s position?
A: Italy’s government is acting appropriately. The decision not to authorize the use of the Sigonella base reflects a correct interpretation of the treaties governing base usage.
- In my view, the Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni government is behaving with dignity and a clear sense of national interest, while maintaining close coordination with allies.
Q: Looking beyond the immediate context, what lessons should be drawn?
A: History offers important lessons. The U.S. withdrawal from European affairs after World War I—following the Senate’s rejection of the League of Nations—had profound consequences.
- It is reasonable to argue that the trajectory leading to World War II might have been different had the United States remained engaged in Europe. This should serve as a warning today, especially given current threats from Russia.
Q: To what extent do domestic political considerations influence Trump’s stance?
A: I believe they play a role. Criticism of NATO may partly aim to appeal to the more isolationist segment of the MAGA electorate, which remains influential in shaping U.S. foreign policy decisions.
Q: Secretary Marco Rubio recently described NATO as a “one-way street.” What would be the implications of direct European involvement in the Iran conflict?
A: Such involvement would be risky. So far, Europe has managed to remain outside the conflict, which lies beyond the legal and geographical scope of NATO’s mandate.
- A direct intervention would have serious consequences. European capitals are acting with caution, and I believe this prudence will continue. There are also ongoing diplomatic efforts—possibly involving China and Pakistan—that could open the door to a compromise.
The bottom line: Finally, Edward Luttwak recently argued that Italy’s military “needs practice.” Your reaction?
- I have great respect for him, but I found his remarks surprisingly polemical. Italy’s approach reflects a rigorous adherence to treaty obligations, particularly regarding Sigonella.
- Frankly, I was struck by what seemed to be a lack of understanding of Italy’s position, which I consider both legitimate and consistent with its national interest.
