Fresh from orchestrating a controversial military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, U.S. President Donald Trump arrived at the NATO summit in the Netherlands this week riding a wave of praise — but also facing tough questions about the long-term consequences of his bold Middle East intervention.
Trump’s unannounced order to deploy U.S. bombers against Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend drew global headlines and immediate reactions. Among the first to commend the move was NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who, in a private message later shared by Trump on social media, hailed the president’s “decisive action” and described the military strike as “truly extraordinary.”
“You’re flying into another big success,” Rutte reportedly wrote, referring not only to Trump’s Middle East gamble but also to the newly agreed NATO defense spending commitment, which Trump has claimed as a major personal victory.
The summit, held in The Hague, saw NATO allies approve an unprecedented target for defense spending: 5% of each member state’s GDP by 2035. For Trump, long critical of what he calls Europe’s “free-riding” on U.S. military might, the agreement marks vindication for years of pressure on the alliance to invest more heavily in collective defense.
“This will be your win,” Rutte concluded in his message — one that underscores how dramatically Trump’s standing among Western allies has shifted in recent days.
From G7 Tensions to Middle East Ceasefire
Just a week earlier, Trump had left the G7 summit in Canada abruptly, as fighting between Israel and Iran threatened to spiral into a broader conflict. By Saturday night, U.S. bombers had struck key Iranian nuclear research sites, and within days, a fragile ceasefire was in place.
Trump’s administration credits his military action and what the White House called “exceptionally firm and direct” diplomacy with bringing an end to what is now being referred to as the “12-Day War.”
According to officials, Trump’s fiery warnings to both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iranian leaders, coupled with the airstrikes, forced both sides to the negotiating table. The president’s allies have touted the ceasefire as a major geopolitical achievement.
But critics, including some within Trump’s own Republican Party, say the celebration may be premature.
Questions Over Iran’s Nuclear Program
While the White House maintains that the bombing campaign dealt a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, leaked U.S. military assessments suggest otherwise. According to Pentagon officials cited by American media outlets, the strikes inflicted damage but fell short of eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities entirely.
The country’s stockpile of enriched uranium — a key ingredient for nuclear weapons — remains largely intact, and intelligence sources warn of undisclosed facilities that may have escaped the bombardment altogether.
White House spokespersons have dismissed those reports as inaccurate and politically motivated attempts to undermine the president.
A Fragile Calm
For now, the guns have fallen silent across the region. But Middle East analysts caution that the ceasefire remains tenuous. Iran’s leadership has been weakened after nearly two weeks of Israeli bombardment, and the country’s internal stability is in question.
“The risk is that a power vacuum or internal chaos in Iran could spark wider instability,” said Dr. Leila Moradi, a Middle East expert at the European Policy Centre. “We’ve seen this scenario before in Syria, and the consequences could be devastating.”
Trump, however, appears eager to move past those concerns. At the NATO summit, he basked in the moment, touting the ceasefire as proof that his administration’s mix of military strength and aggressive diplomacy works.
Domestic Critics Fall Silent — For Now
Interestingly, Trump’s recent moves have quieted some of his domestic detractors. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who had previously threatened legislation to restrict Trump’s military authority over Iran, has shelved those efforts in light of recent events.
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance, seen as a key ideological figure within Trump’s administration, publicly outlined the president’s so-called “foreign policy doctrine”: define American interests, negotiate aggressively, and use overwhelming force if necessary.
Yet even Trump’s supporters acknowledge the approach is often more reactive than strategic — a fact reflected in the administration’s rapid shifts on Iran policy in recent weeks, from distancing the U.S. from Israeli attacks to orchestrating its own military intervention.
A Victory Lap — But an Uncertain Road Ahead
Despite the uncertainty, Trump’s NATO visit has so far played out as a diplomatic victory lap. Allies who once questioned his commitment to the alliance now praise his hardline stance on defense spending and his handling of the Iran-Israel conflict.
But with the situation in the Middle East unresolved, and wars still raging in Ukraine and Gaza, Trump’s moment of triumph may prove fleeting.
As one European diplomat put it bluntly: “The ceasefire is welcome, but nobody believes the hard part is over.”
