Should NATO Expel the United States?

The Uncomfortable Question Europe Can No Longer Avoid

NATO was founded in 1949 around a central assumption: that the United States would serve as the indispensable guarantor of Western security. American military power, its nuclear umbrella, and its global logistical infrastructure made Washington the core of the alliance.

But what if that same power now poses a risk to the stability of the alliance and more broadly a threat to global peace, human rights, and the international legal order?

Over the past decades, the United States has pursued an increasingly interventionist foreign policy: from Iraq and several illegal interventions in various countries in Latin America to Libya and numerous smaller military operations all over the world. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction, already demonstrated how American strategy can destabilize entire regions and draw allies into conflicts they never intended to fight.

Today, a new and uncomfortable question emerges: can a defensive alliance remain credible when its dominant member repeatedly initiates illegal wars that destabilize the international system?

The recent escalation in the Middle East makes that question more urgent than ever.

An Ally That Ignites Conflicts

Just days ago, the United States, together with Israel, launched large-scale military strikes against Iran, hitting targets in Tehran and other cities.

This operation has triggered a regional escalation with global implications. Iran responded with missiles and drones targeting American and Israeli positions in the region, while European governments rushed to emphasize that they were not involved in the attack and called for immediate diplomacy.

Some European leaders went further. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez described the attack as a “disaster” and a violation of international law, warning that such actions increase the risk of global escalation. Other European governments also expressed serious concern. Leaders in countries such as Norway and Ireland have emphasized the importance of respecting international law and avoiding further escalation in the region. Several officials stressed that military actions that bypass international legal frameworks risk undermining global stability.

At the same time, public opinion across Europe is increasingly critical of the escalation. In many European countries, protests and political debates have intensified, with growing segments of the population opposing further military escalation. European leaders may soon face an uncomfortable reality: remaining aligned with Washington could carry increasing political and strategic costs at home.

This different reactions expose a structural problem: when Washington decides to escalate militarily, NATO allies often face the consequences of a strategy over which they have little control.

NATO was designed as a defensive alliance. But when one member repeatedly opens new conflicts, the character of the alliance changes. It risks becoming not a system of collective defense, but a mechanism that can drag its members into wars that do not necessarily serve their own security interests.

The Erosion of the International Legal Order

A second problem is that the United States is increasingly accused of undermining the international norms it once helped create.

In the twentieth century, Washington played a crucial role in constructing the postwar legal order: the United Nations, international humanitarian law, and a network of treaties designed to limit warfare.

Today, however, the credibility of that role is under pressure.

The United States continues to provide military and diplomatic support to Israel in the war in Gaza despite growing international accusations that Israel’s campaign may amount to genocide against Palestinians. Some American politicians themselves have argued that unconditional U.S. military backing has enabled these actions.

The political effect of the unconditional support of Israel is clear: a growing part of the world no longer sees Washington as a defender of human rights, but as a power that applies international norms selectively.

For an alliance that claims to defend democracy, law, and international stability, this creates a fundamental problem. When the alliance’s most powerful member is widely perceived as undermining those norms, the alliance risks losing its moral legitimacy.

A Nuclear Power With a History of Escalation

The third problem is historical and structural: the United States is not only the most powerful military actor in NATO, but also a country with a long record of strategic escalation.

The United States remains the only nation in history to have used nuclear weapons in war. It has also repeatedly launched large-scale military interventions, often with massive regional consequences.

The war in Iraq, justified by alleged weapons of mass destruction that were never found, remains one of the most notorious examples. That war destabilized the Middle East, led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and created the conditions for the rise of extremist movements.

Today we see a similar dynamic emerging: a military escalation against Iran that risks transforming a regional conflict into a much larger war and global chaos.

In a world with multiple nuclear powers (Russia, China, and the United States among them) such escalation carries far greater dangers than in previous decades. A regional war could rapidly become a global crisis.

European countries therefore face a strategic dilemma: should their security remain tied to a power that repeatedly appears willing to risk such escalation?

Is It Thinkable to exclude the US?

For decades, the idea of excluding the United States from NATO would have sounded absurd. The alliance was built around American power and leadership.

But the real question today is simple: is it thinkable?

Yes, it is.

Not because Europe and the United States are enemies, but because the United States itself has increasingly become a driver of global instability. Over the past decades, Washington has repeatedly launched or escalated wars with devastating consequences — from Iraq and Libya to Afghanistan, alongside a long record of interventions in Latin America.

More recently, the escalation against Iran and continued military and diplomatic support for Israel despite mounting accusations of grave violations of humanitarian law have further intensified global tensions.

An alliance created to defend peace, human rights, and international law cannot indefinitely rely on a member whose actions repeatedly undermine those very principles.

If the central pillar of a security alliance becomes one of the main sources of geopolitical destabilization, the question of its role inside that alliance inevitably arises.

What once seemed unthinkable is therefore no longer impossible.

Because if NATO is truly meant to safeguard stability, the alliance must confront a difficult possibility: that the United States itself has become one of the greatest risks to the very order it claims to defend.