1 April, 2026.

An unreliable ally, which the USA under Trump’s deranged, amoral, Putin-friendly, fascist-leaning leadership obviously has been for a long time, is worse than useless. For trust in such an ally not only risks betrayal when the chips are down but discourages the steps needed for self-defence. What, for its part, should the UK do? Cancel the King’s visit, boycott the World Cup, re-join the EU asap, solidify relations with other like-minded middle powers such as Canada, and prioritise defence spending. Perhaps Trump would like to leave the Five Eyes’ Alliance as well, though my guess is that its ‘allies’ are an indispensable source of HUMINT to the US government and military.

Well publicised in Trump’s media account Lies Anti-Social (sorry, Truth Social) is the charge that NATO allies failed to come to his assistance in his war with Iran. Odd that, because (a) it was the USA (together with non-NATO member Israel) that attacked Iran, not vice versa, so Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty 1949 does not apply (b) unless my geography fails me, Iran does not in any case fall within the North Atlantic area as defined by the same treaty. There was, therefore, no obligation on any other NATO member to come to Trump’s assistance on what was his war of choice on Iran. Besides, he did not even bother to give his ‘allies’ any advance notice of his attack, or for that matter the United Nations. It is worth re-reading the short, official text of the NATO treaty here, although I reproduce below the short preamble and Article 1 because they underline why – in more ways than one – the American attack on Iran is wholly inconsistent with its thrust:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty:

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. …

Sadly, it will be seen from Article 13 that, in order to leave NATO, Trump will have to issue a ‘notice of denunciation’ to himself and then wait a year in order to depart the alliance. Surely we can waive this? Not that this sort of detail would worry him anyway, since his is the law of the jungle, not the law of nations. It’s true that in 2023 the Biden administration promoted a law requiring Congressional approval of a presidential wish to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty but Trump could probably find a way round that even if the Republicans were to lose control of both houses in the mid-term elections in November. The USA would remain an untrustworthy ally even if he failed.

Meanwhile, it’s good to see that serious NATO members are giving active consideration to different forms of alliance. This is a very good article in Politico on the whole subject.