Brussels, Belgium – In a sharply escalating tone, US Defense Secretary Pete Haigset launched a scathing attack on US allies in NATO, describing their stance on a potential US war against Iran as “shameful.”
Haigset’s remarks came ahead of a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels. This reflects the deep rift in military coordination between Washington and its European partners.
Harsh criticism of the allies
Hegseth expressed his deep disappointment at the refusal of several NATO countries to provide the necessary logistical support for US operations. He deemed the actions of some countries in denying US forces access to their airspace or obstructing their military deployments as “shameful and detrimental to the security of the alliance.”
The US Secretary of Defense emphasized that these positions weaken the ability to confront challenges. They also reveal a significant divergence in strategic visions between Washington and European capitals regarding how to deal with the Iranian issue.
The birth of “NATO 3.0”
In his vision for restructuring the organization, Hegseth called for a shift towards what he termed “NATO 3.0,” a strategy aimed at enhancing the alliance’s military capabilities to become “a truly deterrent force.”
He explained that NATO, which comprises 32 members, must shed its post-Cold War legacy. He also believes it should begin taking the initiative to defend the European continent independently, rather than relying entirely on the American military umbrella.
Hegsett added: “NATO 3.0 is an acknowledgment of the new reality; the alliance must regain its conventional military capabilities, to be able to deter within the continent and take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe.”
Huge defense investments
The minister’s remarks were not limited to criticism; he also announced Washington’s intention to bolster its military superiority. He unveiled a massive US investment plan worth $1.5 trillion in the defense sector by 2027. This move comes at a time of increasing US pressure on European allies to raise their military budgets and shoulder a greater share of the collective defense burden.
These positions point to a new phase of “military realism” being pursued by the current US administration. Hegsett presents allies with two options: either commit to supporting the US agenda in the region, or assume responsibility for their own security. This opens the door to heated debates within NATO headquarters in Brussels.
